(This column was published in the North Shore News on May 5, 2004)
Court orders often ignored
By Leo Knight
A little over a year ago, Constantin Simantiris, 25, was shot dead in the basement of his parent's home on a quiet street in North Vancouver.
All he had time to do before he died was call 9-1-1 for help and leave a message on his mom's cellphone saying, "I love you."
After a two-month investigation which cost many thousands of dollars and involved up to 30 police officers, the RCMP arrested Aly Khan Mawani, now 24, of North Vancouver.
Mawani was charged by the Mounties following a painstaking effort to put together a case of first degree murder.
Mawani was known to them before the murder as a street-level drug dealer.
In fact, he'd been convicted of four counts of trafficking less than a year before the murder and, as is customary with our system, he was given a minor conditional sentence and placed on probation.
Mawani was still on that probation period when he allegedly got a gun and shot Simantiris in cold blood.
Apparently, the conditions of his probation failed to deter him from further alleged criminal acts.
Imagine that.
A couple of months prior to the murder, while Mawani was on probation, he was arrested yet again on a drug offence, found guilty and given more probation to go along with the probation he was already on.
It's an efficient system, you see.
If one term of probation doesn't seem to have an effect, our courts impose more probation in the vague hope that the criminal will finally see the error of his ways.
But despite all that, Mawani was released on bail in January while awaiting trial on a charge of first degree murder, the most serious criminal offence one can commit in Canada.
His bail conditions were such that he was supposed to stay at home and if he went out he had to be accompanied by one of his parents, who I might add, had signed the surety for his bail guaranteeing they would ensure he kept the conditions of the court.
It didn't take long for that to prove to be a waste of time.
On April 20, Mawani was again arrested by the RCMP, again for allegedly trafficking in cocaine, heroin, marijuana and opium.
Do you think there's a pattern emerging?
When he appeared in court last week on charges of breaching his bail conditions, he was kept in custody, this time until at least June 2.
Now, lest you think that justice is finally being done here, you should know that the Crown prosecutor made no application for him to forfeit the surety posted when he was given bail, nor did the judge deem to make any such order.
This is unbelievable.
What is the point of our bail system, such as it is, if there is no forfeit when conditions are breached?
It makes no sense whatsoever.
Mawani is a person who had demonstrated he does not pay any attention to court-imposed conditions.
He proved this long before Simantiris was killed.
If the court had no intention of making people live up to their promises made and signed on a court order, why not simply release everyone on their own recognizance?
Why even go through the charade of asking for a cash or surety bail?
I harbour no illusions about the effectiveness of the bail system.
In fact, it's a bit of a joke really when an accused person who has ignored court imposed conditions should even be eligible for bail when charged with a capital crime.
But, at the least, when the conditions are inevitably breached, as they were in this case, then the court should exact some consequence for that transgression.
By definition, if someone signs a surety guaranteeing an amount of money be paid if they do not live up to their end of the bargain to get someone released from jail, then surely the courts must follow through on exacting that money as the price to be paid for failing to abide by the conditions.
Especially, if the surety is pledged in order to allow an accused murderer to walk free among us.
The courts are quick to disallow evidence if the police infringe upon the Constitutional rights of some scumbag appearing for the umpteenth time lest they "bring the administration of justice into disrepute."
It seems to me when they allow this type of nonsense, it is they themselves who bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
-30-