A B.C. Supreme Court judge ruled a prisoner, who has spent time in four different provincial jails in just over a year, should be returned to medium security after being wrongfully transferred and deemed a severe risk.
Dayton Bevan was sentenced to two years less a day on Sept. 18, 2023, but the Nov. 29 decision by Justice Jan Brongers does not disclose the reason for conviction. Bevan was originally held at the Prince George Regional Correctional Centre, then transferred to Kamloops Regional Correctional Centre. In November 2023, Bevan was sent to Chilliwack’s Ford Mountain Correctional Centre, now known as Xàws Schó:lha Correctional Centre, a provincial camp-style correctional centre that holds inmates deemed suitable for open to medium custody.
That lasted until early May of this year, when officials sent Bevan to a jail in Maple Ridge, the Fraser Regional Correctional Centre (FRCC), and classified him for severe security.
Brongers wrote that, according to provincial officials, an informant had alleged that Bevan had been involved in another inmate’s escape and that Bevan knew of the escape plan ahead of time.
A further review determined that there was no information to suggest Bevan was a potential escape risk.
In late August, Bevan filed a B.C. Supreme Court application against the FRCC warden and the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General to contest the decision. In October, the province reclassified Bevan as medium security, but he remained at FRCC.
Brongers decided in favour of Bevan’s application and found that the May transfer was unlawful and breached procedural fairness.
“Mr. Bevan is to be returned to a medium security institution, to be dealt with therein as correctional authorities consider to be appropriate,” Brongers concluded.
Brongers agreed with Bevan’s lawyer, Toby Rauch-Davis, that Bevan was not provided notice and disclosure explaining the move to FRCC, written reasons for the decision or given an opportunity to contest the decision.
“Finally, the province did not show the existence of any exigent circumstances that might have justified these omissions in this case,” Brongers wrote.
