A Mayo man has been released from custody pending an appeal decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The man was convicted after having sexual relations with an underage girl in 2015.

His name cannot be published, as it would identify the complainant. His application for leave was heard by Justice Gail Dickson in the Court of Appeal of Yukon.

The hearing took place Aug. 15, with Dickson issuing an oral decision on Aug. 20.

Crown prosecutor Keith Parkkari argued against the release, on the grounds of public interest.

He was not objecting to the release based on the appeal being frivolous, or if the man is a flight risk.

Jennifer Cunningham, the man’s lawyer, argued that it would be in the public interest to grant leave to her client, pending appeal.

If it is not granted, she reasoned, the appeal could be rendered moot by the time the federal Supreme Court makes its decision.

The man was sentenced to 15 months in jail. He has served approximately four months, and is eligible for release afterwards.

Cunningham pointed out that her client has been in custody since he was sentenced in territorial court. She added that he followed the conditions of his recognizance before being sentenced and turned himself in when required.

She said that everyone in Mayo already knows what happened. There was a sentencing circle where the community felt it was all right for him to return.

Canada is working toward reconciliation, Cunningham noted, and that is part of the country’s values. She felt the community clearly stated it wanted Gladue principles and First Nations customs respected.

There are no lingering public safety concerns, the lawyer said, nor does her client represent a flight risk. She said there is no risk that he will commit another offence, as the community would be watching him closely.

Parkkari maintained that there is an issue with public confidence. He explained that the court has stated it was a bad sentencing circle.

Only 11 people attended, and the girl was not represented.

He noted a judge has discretion, and the court can’t take the conclusions of a deficient circles and say it meets Gladue obligations.

“There is an issue here,” Parkkari said. His arguments are backed up by case law, he added.

The Crown was unconvinced that the appeal would be moot if leave was not granted.

If the man earns remission, Parkkari said, he could be released in 10 months. This still leaves him with six months left in the original sentence.

If the leave is not granted, he added, the court would have to order the man to surrender himself to the authorities 24 hours before the appeal is heard.

Cunningham pointed out she’s heard the application could take four to seven months. As well, she did not feel the circle should be disregarded.

“There has been circle sentencing for 30 years,” Cunningham said. “They don’t happen often.”

Dickson reserved her decision until Aug. 20. That day, reading her decision, she said the court needs to ask if there is a matter of federal importance to the appeal.

It also needs to consider a potential flight risk and how the decision will affect the public’s view of justice.

Dickson pointed out that the man appealed his sentence to the territory’s Court of Appeal. The court did rule, on April 18, that the mandatory minimum was “grossly disproportionate” but otherwise upheld the sentence and dismissed his appeal.

Dickson was satisfied that the man does not pose a flight risk and that he has demonstrated that his appeal is not frivolous.

She was convinced that if leave was not granted, the appeal could be rendered moot, as he could have served his entire jail term.

She said the appeal is of national importance since it involves Gladue principles and sentencing circles. She said the continued detention is not in the public interest, and granted his request.

The man was ordered to report to his bail supervisor 24 hours after his release. He will also have to surrender himself within 24 hours of his appeal decision being released.