A Saskatchewan Aboriginal advocacy organization says Saskatchewan’s remand system is in crisis and the Province is in breach of both the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights.
“The hard fact is Saskatchewan is wasting money and at the same time failing to meet objective human rights standards,” said Kim Beaudin, president of the Aboriginal Affairs Coalition of Saskatchewan (AACS). “The big question at the heart of this matter is whether or not the current government has the political will to reform policies, programs, legislation and regulations.”
In a press release dated March 21, the AACS suggests a trend of increasing numbers of prisoners on remand is costing taxpayers millions of dollars, although where that assertion comes from is unclear.
The trend is real, however. According to Statistics Canada, over the decade ending in 2010 the number of adult admissions to remand increased by 30 per cent. In Saskatchewan, the percentage of adults on remand as a proportion of those in custody went from 27 per cent to 37 per cent. The average length of remand also increased from five days to eight days.
The AACS identifies several problems including: overcrowding and increased safety risks for both staff and inmates; higher transportation costs as more inmates make court appearances; and increased staff costs, as more inmates need to be supervised.
This, of course, disproportionately impacts Indigenous persons as they make up close to 80 per cent of both remand and sentenced populations while only representing 14 per cent of the population at large.
“While in the system, Indigenous prisoners are faced with overcrowding, increased tension and violence, and reduced availability to rehabilitative programs,” the release stated.
Beaudin would like to see Saskatchewan adopt pre-charge screening as B.C., Quebec and New Brunswick have done.
A 2012 report by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association pegs the number of cases that are dropped before becoming a drain on the justice system is between 7,000 and 40,000.
“Common sense tells us that pre-screening would be an effective methodology for eliminating the meritless cases early in the process, as well as discovering deficiencies in other cases,” Beaudin said. “The savings would be in the millions of dollars.”
The federal Department of Justice acknowledges a correlation between pre-charge screening and reduced adjudication rates, but says more research is required to verify a causal link.
.JPG;w=120;h=80;mode=crop)
