The case involves a man who entered his former intimate partner's home to install hidden cameras
The NS Court of Appeal had refused to grant bail to a man found guilty of charges related to unlawful entry, voyeurism, obstruction of justice, and other offences.
In R. v. Sullivan, 2024 NSCA 5, John Sullivan entered his former intimate partner's home, installed hidden cameras, and attempted to obstruct justice by removing evidence. The trial judge found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
The charges stemmed from incidents that occurred approximately six months after the end of Sullivan's intimate relationship with the victim, identified as SR. During this period, Sullivan allegedly entered SR's home, installed three small cameras, and secretly observed her in compromising situations. The court noted that at least two cameras were connected to SR's WiFi, allowing remote viewing.
The judge emphasized the critical nature of the evidence, particularly the content on an SD card seized by the police at the time of Sullivan's arrest. The footage on the SD card included images of SR in vulnerable situations, which the judge deemed highly reliable and virtually conclusive of Sullivan's guilt.
Sullivan had raised Charter motions during the trial, asserting violations of his constitutional rights. However, the judge found s. 8 Charter breaches related to the seizure of the SD card but determined that the evidence should be admitted due to its significance and reliability.
Sullivan received a three-year prison sentence. He promptly appealed the convictions and applied for bail pending appeal, proposing a release plan that included his sister as a surety and various conditions. However, the NS Court of Appeal ultimately denied bail. The judge considered factors such as the gravity of the offences, public confidence, and the strength of the grounds of appeal in reaching this decision.
The court noted that Sullivan was convicted of offences committed against a former intimate partner and perpetrated secretly in her own home. Furthermore, the appeal court acknowledged the trial judge's finding that Sullivan's moral culpability was high, indicating his actions were deliberate and calculated. The trial judge described the offences as perpetrating "an extreme invasion of privacy" and an "egregious breach" of SR's privacy and dignity.
The appeal court was not convinced that Sullivan's grounds of appeal against conviction were strong. The court was also not satisfied that Sullivan's release plan would contribute to public confidence, even if he were prepared to accede to increased restrictions. The court noted that he would not live with or even near his surety. He would be subject only to a curfew. Outside of the hours under curfew, he would attend tenant calls at their apartments.
In its final balancing of enforceability and reviewability aspects, the court determined that Sullivan had not met the burden required to establish his release pending appeal. The court highlighted the seriousness of the offences and the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice. Accordingly, the court dismissed his motion for bail.
