If I Have a Criminal Record, Can I Still Act as a Surety?

IF I HAVE A CRIMINAL RECORD, CAN I STILL ACT AS A SURETY?

This blog is brought to you courtesy of LawyerSelect.ca

Let’s first begin by explaining what a surety is, and what they do. Put simply, a surety is often required when an accused person is granted bail and released from custody.

The Surety Explained –

When someone is charged with a criminal offence, sometimes they are released at the police station, and some other times they’re held until they can go before a court who will then decide if they get released on bail. A great majority of the time, the court will require that the accused have a surety in order to get bail. As such, a surety is basically someone who promises the court that they’ll keep an eye on the accused, until his or her charges have been dealt with. They’re usually required to live with the accused, supervise the accused, and ensure that the accused obeys all the terms of the bail agreement.

Some examples of these terms are:

·         To live with your surety, or live at an address that your surety approves of.

·         A curfew or house arrest.

·         Attending all scheduled court dates.

·         Reporting to the police station when required.

·         Refraining from direct or indirect communication with the victim or complainant in the matter.

·         Refrain from entering a predefined geographic boundary where the victim or complainant live, work, or are known to frequent.

·         Refraining from the consumption and possession of drugs and/or alcohol.

·         Keeping the peace at all times, and being of good behaviour.

Again, it’s the surety’s job to ensure that the accused obeys all the terms of the bail agreement (which is known as a recognizance of bail). If the accused breaches any of the terms of their bail, the surety could forfeit the money or assets that they pledged. This responsibility continues until the case is completely over, or they’re removed as the accused’s surety.

What Factors Do the Courts Consider when Assessing a Potential Surety?

The judge or the justice of the peace, depending on the level of court, is the ultimate decision-maker on the sufficiency of any proposed surety. When making their decision, the judge or justice of the peace will have different requirements for proposed sureties based on the charges that the accused is facing. In general, however, the judge or justice of the peace will consider the following factors in determining whether a proposed surety is acceptable or not:

·         Surety’s financial means.

·         Surety’s character and overall disposition.

·         Surety’s criminal background or lack thereof.

·         Surety’s relationship to the accused.

·         Surety’s ability to effectively monitor the accused, and ability to enforce the terms of the bail agreement.

In order to make a determination on the above factors, the surety will often be required to testify under oath at the bail hearing. Typically, they’ll be questioned first by the accused’s defence lawyer, who will try and portray them in the best possible light. However, the surety will also be subject to cross-examination by the Crown prosecutor, who will bring to light any unsavoury facts about the surety. With that mind, we can now answer the question posited by this article: can a person with a criminal record act as a surety? The answer to that is: yes, there is no hard and fast rule that prohibits an individual with a criminal record from acting as a surety. The decision will fall entirely to the presiding judge or justice of the peace. However, there are certain criminal convictions that may render it inappropriate for a certain person to be acting as a surety for a certain accused. A prime example of this would be if the surety has a history of drug offences, and the accused is currently facing a drug charge. Similarly, a surety who has criminal convictions for crimes of dishonesty or failing to attend court, will likely be deemed inappropriate by a reviewing court, as confidence in that person’s ability to monitor the accused will likely have been eroded.