The Tribune

By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune News Editor

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

THE Court of Appeal has denied a murder suspect’s request to remove the electronic monitoring device from his bail conditions, rejecting his claim that it negatively affects his business operations and causes him financial hardship.

Lavardo Huyler has been on bail since 2019, pending trial for the alleged murder of his wife. In a decision delivered by Justice Evans, the Court of Appeal found that the monitoring device was integral to ensuring his compliance with his bail terms, particularly given the serious nature of the charges.

Huyler was arraigned in 2017 on a charge of murder relating to the death of his wife. He was granted bail in June 2019 under strict conditions, including reporting to the police twice weekly and wearing an electronic monitoring device. Since then, he has complied with these terms, except for one reported incident involving the battery of the device, which the court noted did not result in any formal action to revoke his bail.

Huyler, a heavy equipment operator and businessman, filed an application in October to vary his bail conditions, citing financial strain and reputational harm caused by the monitoring device. Letters submitted on his behalf described him as a hardworking entrepreneur but acknowledged that the ankle monitor had impacted his ability to secure contracts.

Huyler argued that the monitoring device deterred potential clients and jeopardised his livelihood. In his affidavit, he said: “I am experiencing extreme hardship by the loss of clients and potentially losing more due to the appearance of the electronic monitoring device while working on job sites.”

Letters from business associates supported these claims. One associate wrote: “We have lost multiple contracts due to the situation with the ankle bracelet. Clients say they know the quality of work but can’t get past the impression of what the ankle bracelet portrays.”

His lawyer, Murio Ducille, KC, contended that Huyler’s five-year history of compliance with bail conditions demonstrated his reliability. “He has stuck to the terms and conditions of his bail... and has been gainfully employed during this five-year period,” Mr Ducille told the court.

The Crown opposed the application, raising concerns about public safety and the nature of the allegations against Huyler. Police Corporal Harris Cash testified that the alleged murder occurred while Huyler was on bail for a prior charge involving his wife. Cash also referenced an incident in which Huyler allowed the battery on his monitoring device to run down, though no concrete action had been taken in response.

The Crown further argued that the electronic monitoring device served a critical purpose. “This is a case involving a very serious charge. The monitoring device ensures that he can be accounted for at all times,” said the prosecutor.

In denying the application, Justice Evans said the court had considered the applicant’s circumstances but found no evidence of undue hardship caused by the monitoring device.

“The evidence lead by the applicant himself shows that he has built up a profitable business. There is no evidence that the presence of the bracelet is causing him hardship,” Justice Evans said. “It is, I am sure, an inconvenience and embarrassment to him as a businessman. But he is on bail relative to a charge of murder, which is a very serious offence.”

Justice Evans also questioned the validity of some claims, noting inconsistencies in the letters submitted. For example, one letter described Huyler as having his spouse’s support, despite his spouse being deceased.

The judge further noted that while the monitoring device might pose challenges, it had not prevented Huyler from successfully maintaining a business: “He has been gainfully employed during this five-year period.” “What has so dramatically changed all of a sudden that warrants his application to change?”

Huyler’s trial is set for June 2026, nearly a decade after the alleged offence. Justice Evans expressed hope that the matter would proceed expeditiously.

“I would hope that the efforts to expedite his trial foreshadowed by the Crown would bear fruit,” he wrote. “However, the applicant is always at liberty to renew his efforts for a change of his conditions if his circumstances were to change.”