 |
| John L. Hill |
“Standing just 4-foot-11 and needing a walker to get around, Teresa Santos, 75, was brutally stabbed and beaten in August 2020 in her Shaw St. apartment by Damien Allred, a burly construction worker and father of five.
The motive remains a mystery, though his lawyer blamed his previous mental health issues and increased anxiety due to being laid off during the [COVID-19] pandemic.
Santos’s decomposing body was found days later in a pool of blood, a pillow over her face with the imprint of a Puma shoe.
An autopsy revealed a knife lodged inside her mouth that had penetrated deep into her skull. She’d been beaten on her head, had five dislodged teeth and multiple rib fractures from being stomped on her chest.”
In November 2022, it took a jury less than a day to convict. Allred was sentenced to life imprisonment, with parole eligibility in 17 years.
He appealed his conviction to the Ontario Court of Appeal. The brutality of the crime and the strength of the Crown’s case were indisputable. It was a jury decision. On what basis could Allred appeal?
vectorslab: ISTOCKPHOTO.COM
That argument was weakened by the fact that, in addition to his second-degree murder charge, he was also facing a criminal harassment charge in relation to another resident of the apartment building where Allred and Santos lived. He was further charged with assaulting another inmate while in pretrial custody. Nonetheless, Allred took the position that these factors resulted in only “minimal” concern in the courtroom context.
Secondly, he argued that a fair trial required communication with his lawyer. As a Black man of Caribbean descent, he faced additional stigma. (The judge had allowed a race-based challenge for cause during jury selection. This factor was not argued on appeal.)
The Ontario Court of Appeal delivered its decision on April 10, 2026 (R. v. Allred, 2026 ONCA 258). The appeal by Allred was dismissed because the court found no reversible error in the trial judge’s decision to require him, as an in-custody accused, to sit in the prisoner’s box during trial.
The Appeal Court began by noting that courtroom layouts are structured spaces where each participant, including the accused, has an assigned place. For accused persons in custody, that place is typically the prisoner’s box.
Addressing a long-standing debate in Ontario, the court clarified the legal framework. It held that there is a presumption that an in-custody accused will sit in the prisoner’s box, reflecting both practical security realities and the need for a clear analytical starting point. This presumption places the onus on the accused to justify sitting elsewhere. The trial judge did not err in applying this approach.
Regarding stigma, the court rejected the argument that sitting in the prisoner’s box undermines the presumption of innocence. Even if some risk of prejudice exists, it is adequately cured by standard jury instructions, which jurors are presumed to follow. The court emphasized its confidence in juries and declined to accept the claim that placement alone could influence verdicts.
Regarding visibility, the court found no error in considering that the accused should generally be visible to the jury. Visibility can serve the trial’s truth-seeking function, particularly when identification or appearance may be relevant.
On security, the court held that the trial judge properly considered both general and case-specific concerns. Allowing Allred to sit at the counsel table would have required additional security measures, such as the presence of more officers, which could itself be more prejudicial. This assessment was entitled to deference.
As for communication with counsel, the court found no evidence that Allred’s ability to instruct or consult with counsel was impaired. Alternatives such as breaks or written notes were available, and no actual prejudice was demonstrated.
In summary, the trial judge’s discretionary decision was reasonable and consistent with the proper legal framework. Sitting in the prisoner’s box did not infringe Allred’s right to a full answer and defence, and any potential prejudice was mitigated.
Finally, the court held that even if there had been an error, it would not have caused any substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice, given the overwhelming strength of the Crown’s case. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Although this decision did not alter Allred’s conviction, it gives a basis to defence counsel in how to frame an application to allow an accused to sit at the counsel table. Quebec settled the issue by enacting a law requiring the placement of an accused in a prisoner’s box during trial. The Allred decision will guide counsel elsewhere in any application to have an accused participate outside the box.
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. He 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.