Surety must pay $1,500 for fugitive defendant

Ryan Bateman is now a fugitive, judge advises

A woman who signed as surety for a defendant accused of inflicting grievous bodily harm was ordered to forfeit $1,500 when she appeared in Grand Court on Friday and he did not. 

The court had ordered a warrant for Ryan Bateman’s arrest without bail when he failed to attend on Nov. 11. 

Bateman, 41, was charged with unlawfully and maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm to a named woman on a day some time between Jan. 1 and March 27 in 2013. The charge arose after an incident at the residence the couple shared. 

Justice Charles Quin thanked the surety for coming to court on Friday. “I’m very sorry you’ve been let down by Mr. Bateman so badly,” he said.  

“But you will have to forfeit the $1,500,” the judge continued. “It was a contractual arrangement. You want to tell him that he is a fugitive from justice. He will remain so and he is quite likely to be the subject of extradition proceedings, so his troubles aren’t over.”  

The surety indicated she understood. 

Bateman, a Canadian national, first appeared in Summary Court and the charge was sent to Grand Court in March this year. His original bail conditions included an order not to contact the complainant. He was allowed to travel upon entering into a recognizance in the sum of $1,500, with a surety for $1,500 and the signed consent of the surety along with an itinerary. 

He appeared several times in the Grand Court before entering a plea of not guilty in July. 

In September, he applied for his bail to be varied to allow travel to Canada. The Crown did not object and permission was granted for him to leave the jurisdiction. His itinerary showed he was to have returned in mid-September. 

In October, his defense attorney was advised by email that Bateman and the complainant were no longer in the jurisdiction. The attorney advised the court on Nov. 7 that Bateman had failed to cooperate and she applied to come off record for him. 

Justice Quin asked then if the defendant and complainant had left together. The attorney indicated that was the situation.  

The judge asked if he should issue a warrant, but he was told that Bateman had a matter in Summary Court the following Tuesday. That Tuesday was Nov. 11 and when Bateman did not attend, the warrant for his arrest was issued and the surety was summoned. 

Comments are closed.