Newfoundland Appeal Court cites public safety in denying drug dealer bail

Law360 Canada (November 6, 2025, 11:59 AM EST) --

John L. Hill

There is growing concern that our courts are too lenient in granting bail to individuals charged with a criminal offence. Some criticize the judicial process as “catch and release.” However, there is little public comment when bail is requested pending appeal for what even the Crown considered an excessively harsh sentence.

A recent judgment from the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal, R. v. Tulk, 2025 NLCA 36, highlights the challenges an accused person faces.

Martin Tulk was convicted of several serious offences, including possession for the purpose of trafficking over 10 kilograms of cocaine, possession of proceeds of crime ($67,000 in cash), possession of a loaded prohibited firearm while under a lifetime firearms ban, possession of an imitation weapon, and careless storage and possession of firearms with obliterated serial numbers.

He was sentenced to 10 years in prison and is currently appealing both his conviction and the sentence. Tulk argued that the evidence used against him at his trial in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, General Division (R. v. Tulk, 2025 NLSC 1 and 2025 NLSC 93), was improperly admitted. He claimed he was not informed of the reasons for his arrest and that his right to be promptly advised of and to instruct counsel, as guaranteed by Charter ss. 10(a) and (b), was violated. He also contended that the evidence against him should have been excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter. Furthermore, he argued that the sentence was excessive, surpassing even what the Crown had sought.

Pending appeal, he sought judicial interim release (bail) under s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code. That section states that to be granted bail pending appeal, the onus is on the applicant to demonstrate that the appeal is not frivolous, that the applicant will surrender into custody and that detention is not necessary in the public interest (R. v. Oland, 2017 SCC 17).

The Newfoundland and Labrador Appeal Court found it easy to determine that the first two conditions had been satisfied.

The appeal was not frivolous. The Appeal Court justice hearing the motion agreed with Tulk’s position that there might have been a breach in allowing Tulk his s. 10 Charter rights, even though the trial judge had weighed the test in R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32 when admitting the evidence. Without making a final ruling, the Appeal Court judge accepted that the argument met the legal threshold of “not being frivolous.”

The Crown conceded the second condition that Tulk would surrender into custody. Despite past breaches and flight-related offences, Tulk maintained community ties, and conditions applied to his release could ensure his appearance.

It was on the third condition, that detention was in the public interest and necessary, that Tulk’s motion failed. The court found detention was necessary under both public safety and confidence in the administration of justice.

With respect for public safety concerns, Tulk’s record showed a disregard for court orders, including breaches, fleeing police and firearm possession despite a lifetime ban. His firearms offences were particularly troubling, as they demonstrated contempt for judicial prohibitions. Although some previous convictions were old, the judge concluded he still posed a risk of reoffending.

The Appeal Court also identified flaws in the release plan. Tulk’s parents offered to act as sureties and post a $10,000 cash bond. However, Tulk, an unemployed carpenter with two young children, had used their home to traffic cocaine, and police had been called there multiple times, including for a domestic disturbance. The court deemed them unsuitable sureties, either because they were unaware (and thus easily manipulated) or because they tolerated his behaviour. As a result, the plan failed to reduce risk.

There was also a risk that releasing Tulk would weaken confidence in the justice system. Considering the serious offences, including large-scale cocaine trafficking and firearm violations, his criminal record and a weak appeal, public trust would be compromised if he were released.

The court emphasized the enforceability of convictions and the high public interest in deterrence and accountability (R. v. Oland; R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46). Trafficking cocaine causes broad societal harm beyond physical danger.

The application for bail pending appeal was dismissed. The judge ruled that releasing Tulk would endanger public safety and erode public confidence in the justice system, although he may reapply if the circumstances materially change.

The granting of bail pending appeal does not appear to be easily available. The three conditions in Oland must be demonstrated. The applicant also needs suitable sureties and a viable release plan.

 John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a JD from Queen’s and an LLM in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. His most recent book, Acts of Darkness (Durvile & UpRoute Books), was released July 1. Hill is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books) and The Rest of the (True Crime) Story (AOS Publishing). Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.