Ruthowsky to remain behind bars
Jailed Hamilton police officer Craig Ruthowsky has lost his bid for freedom pending appeal after being convicted of corruption charges.
“I am persuaded that his appeal contains grounds that are not frivolous, that he will more probably than not surrender himself into custody, and that he does not pose a risk to the safety of the community,” wrote Court of Appeal Justice David Paciocco in a decision released Wednesday.
“However, I am not satisfied that a reasonable member of the public would conclude that his detention pending appeal is not necessary in the public interest,” he wrote.
“This is because he has been convicted of serious offences that were committed in extremely aggravated circumstances.”
In these circumstances, “a reasonable member of the public would conclude that the interest in the immediate enforcement of his lengthy sentence outweighs the interest in releasing him pending the appeal of his conviction and sentence.”
Ruthowsky was convicted of bribery, attempt to obstruct justice, criminal breach of trust and trafficking cocaine after a 25-day jury trial in Toronto.
Last month, Superior Court Justice Robert Clark sentenced him to 13 years in prison, minus six months credit for time served.
Ruthowsky is appealing both his conviction and sentence.
He is still facing more than a dozen criminal charges this fall.
One of Ruthowsky’s grounds of appeal is that the trial judge demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias in the way he conducted the trial.
Ruthowsky argues the trial was conducted in an atmosphere of “unabated oppression” toward the defence, Paciocco wrote.
Greg Lafontaine, Ruthowsky’s defence lawyer who also argued the appeal, submitted an affidavit from his law student who recorded observations about the judge made during the trial.
The hearsay reported by the law student described the judge disparaging the defence case or betraying his disapproval of the defence by variously shaking his head and rolling his eyes, demonstrating impatience or disapproval through his body language, huffing and scoffing, scowling, sighing loudly, glaring and appearing visibly annoyed, angry, frustrated, or looking “disdainfully” or “with apparent disapproval.”
However, Paciocco wrote there are “significant impediments to this ground of appeal,” including the fact the jury was instructed to decide the case on the evidence, based on their own opinions.