Nanaimo Hells Angel sees criminal charges stayed

[jimsenchuk]

Nanaimo Hells Angel sees criminal charges stayed after court delays

Fred Widdifield and three others linked to the notorious biker gang were charged in November 2010

Criminal charges against a high-ranking member of the Nanaimo Hells Angels have been stayed by a B.C. Supreme Court judge, who ruled his Charter rights were violated because the case was taking too long to get to trial.

Fred Widdifield and three others linked to the notorious biker gang were charged in November 2010 with extortion, after they allegedly pressured a man for $250,000 in cash and property to settle a 1994 debt.

Widdifield’s lawyer argued before Justice Robert Johnston that the delays were the fault of the Crown, which was late in disclosing evidence to the defence, and issues with the lawyers for Widdifield’s co-accused. He said none of the delays could be attributed to his client.

Johnston agreed in a written ruling Tuesday.

“On all of the evidence, and bearing in mind the reasons for the delays, I find that Mr. Widdifield’s right to trial within a reasonable time, guaranteed him by Section 11(b) of the Charter, has been breached, and I order a stay of the proceedings of these charges brought against him,” Johnston said.

The trial against the other three is set to begin this fall.

Widdifield’s case is one of several involving gangs or organized crime before the courts in B.C. where pre-trial motions often continue for years before trials begin.

Gang suspects in the Surrey Six murder case will finally go to trial in September – 4½ years after they were arrested. Hells Angels and associates charged in June 2011 in a Kelowna murder are set to go to trial in November.

The Greeks gang murder trial was the longest in B.C. history. Pre-trial motions continued for years and the trial lasted from May 2011 to November 2012, when five members of the gang originally charged in May 2006 were convicted.

Pre-trial motions and voir dires deal with a variety of issues, like Crown disclosure of information, admissibility of evidence (including wiretaps and witness statements), identification of police sources and the need for publication bans.

In Widdifield’s case, Johnston accepted the biker’s claim that his life was unfairly affected as he awaited his trial, which had been to proceed last fall, but was adjourned again.

Widdifield said he paid thousands in extra legal bills related to the delays and was unable to travel with his wife to the United States because of the outstanding criminal case.

“Mr. Widdifield has sworn to the stress and anxiety he has felt, as has his wife, as a result of the outstanding charges, and the cost of defending them,” Johnston noted in the ruling.

The delays began when the Crown alleged a lawyer for co accused Raj Sandhu, also a full-patch Nanaimo Hells Angel, was in a conflict of interest because she had earlier given advice to police in a related investigation. Another Supreme Court justice ordered the lawyer off the case. Then Sandhu’s new lawyer withdrew, creating another delay.

As the trial was set to begin last November, the lawyer for co-accused and alleged HA enforcer Jeffrey Benvin needed heart surgery and was unavailable. The lawyer for the fourth accused, Robbie Lajeunesse, consented to an adjournment, but Widdifield asked for the trial to go ahead.

Johnston said the Crown should have severed Widdifield’s case then and continued with his trial, instead of delaying for several more months.

He also cited the Crown’s delay in providing disclosure from an earlier police investigation targeting the Nanaimo Hells Angels.

The Crown alleged that Widdifield, Sandhu and their “enforcers” Benvin and Lajeunesse pressured a man identified only as Mr. H for months in 2010 to pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars. Sandhu and Lajeunesse were alleged to have threatened violence against Mr. H, who eventually turned over $2,500 cash and a boat worth $100,000. The Crown said Widdifield asked Mr. H for even more cash and that the victim was hit in the face by Lajeunesse during an October 2010 meeting at Widdifield’s house.

B.C. Justice Minister Shirley Bond said the Crown is reviewing the ruling “to determine if an appeal is warranted.”

“Of course it is concerning for any court case to be stayed because of the length of time it has taken to get to trial. This case is no exception,” she said in a statement issued late Tuesday.

“There are still three accused before the court and because of this, and the Crown review, I will not comment further on it.”

NDP justice critic Leonard Krog, a lawyer from Nanaimo, said the ruling raises questions about whether enough resources are in the hands of prosecutors in organized crime cases.

“It is a dreadful example of how government has failed to support one of its most fundamental responsibilities, which is to maintain a workable justice system, protect the public and punish the wrongdoers,” Krog said.

“Mr. Widdifield has not been judged by anyone so justice will never be done in this case, whether he was guilty or innocent will never be determined.”

Krog said the judicial system in B.C. is cumbersome and “ has lost the respect of many who work in it and many who observe it.”

Read more:

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Nanaim ... z2VNuuCaeR

[Trigger69]

Nanaimo Hells Angel sees criminal charges stayed after court delays

Fred Widdifield and three others linked to the notorious biker gang were charged in November 2010

Criminal charges against a high-ranking member of the Nanaimo Hells Angels have been stayed by a B.C. Supreme Court judge, who ruled his Charter rights were violated because the case was taking too long to get to trial.

Fred Widdifield and three others linked to the notorious biker gang were charged in November 2010 with extortion, after they allegedly pressured a man for $250,000 in cash and property to settle a 1994 debt.

Widdifield’s lawyer argued before Justice Robert Johnston that the delays were the fault of the Crown, which was late in disclosing evidence to the defence, and issues with the lawyers for Widdifield’s co-accused. He said none of the delays could be attributed to his client.

Johnston agreed in a written ruling Tuesday.

“On all of the evidence, and bearing in mind the reasons for the delays, I find that Mr. Widdifield’s right to trial within a reasonable time, guaranteed him by Section 11(b) of the Charter, has been breached, and I order a stay of the proceedings of these charges brought against him,” Johnston said.

The trial against the other three is set to begin this fall.

Widdifield’s case is one of several involving gangs or organized crime before the courts in B.C. where pre-trial motions often continue for years before trials begin.

Gang suspects in the Surrey Six murder case will finally go to trial in September – 4½ years after they were arrested. Hells Angels and associates charged in June 2011 in a Kelowna murder are set to go to trial in November.

The Greeks gang murder trial was the longest in B.C. history. Pre-trial motions continued for years and the trial lasted from May 2011 to November 2012, when five members of the gang originally charged in May 2006 were convicted.

Pre-trial motions and voir dires deal with a variety of issues, like Crown disclosure of information, admissibility of evidence (including wiretaps and witness statements), identification of police sources and the need for publication bans.

In Widdifield’s case, Johnston accepted the biker’s claim that his life was unfairly affected as he awaited his trial, which had been to proceed last fall, but was adjourned again.

Widdifield said he paid thousands in extra legal bills related to the delays and was unable to travel with his wife to the United States because of the outstanding criminal case.

“Mr. Widdifield has sworn to the stress and anxiety he has felt, as has his wife, as a result of the outstanding charges, and the cost of defending them,” Johnston noted in the ruling.

The delays began when the Crown alleged a lawyer for co accused Raj Sandhu, also a full-patch Nanaimo Hells Angel, was in a conflict of interest because she had earlier given advice to police in a related investigation. Another Supreme Court justice ordered the lawyer off the case. Then Sandhu’s new lawyer withdrew, creating another delay.

As the trial was set to begin last November, the lawyer for co-accused and alleged HA enforcer Jeffrey Benvin needed heart surgery and was unavailable. The lawyer for the fourth accused, Robbie Lajeunesse, consented to an adjournment, but Widdifield asked for the trial to go ahead.

Johnston said the Crown should have severed Widdifield’s case then and continued with his trial, instead of delaying for several more months.

He also cited the Crown’s delay in providing disclosure from an earlier police investigation targeting the Nanaimo Hells Angels.

The Crown alleged that Widdifield, Sandhu and their “enforcers” Benvin and Lajeunesse pressured a man identified only as Mr. H for months in 2010 to pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars. Sandhu and Lajeunesse were alleged to have threatened violence against Mr. H, who eventually turned over $2,500 cash and a boat worth $100,000. The Crown said Widdifield asked Mr. H for even more cash and that the victim was hit in the face by Lajeunesse during an October 2010 meeting at Widdifield’s house.

B.C. Justice Minister Shirley Bond said the Crown is reviewing the ruling “to determine if an appeal is warranted.”

“Of course it is concerning for any court case to be stayed because of the length of time it has taken to get to trial. This case is no exception,” she said in a statement issued late Tuesday.

“There are still three accused before the court and because of this, and the Crown review, I will not comment further on it.”

NDP justice critic Leonard Krog, a lawyer from Nanaimo, said the ruling raises questions about whether enough resources are in the hands of prosecutors in organized crime cases.

“It is a dreadful example of how government has failed to support one of its most fundamental responsibilities, which is to maintain a workable justice system, protect the public and punish the wrongdoers,” Krog said.

“Mr. Widdifield has not been judged by anyone so justice will never be done in this case, whether he was guilty or innocent will never be determined.”

Krog said the judicial system in B.C. is cumbersome and “ has lost the respect of many who work in it and many who observe it.”

Read more:

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Nanaim ... z2VNuuCaeR

This disgusts me...

[dogspoiler]

It seems that the people that are being very overpaid to operate our legal system should be locked up for fraud. They have no morals grounds on which to recieve pay for this type of incompetent bungling.

[jimsenchuk]

It seems that the people that are being very overpaid to operate our legal system should be locked up for fraud. They have no morals grounds on which to recieve pay for this type of incompetent bungling.

Wanna know one of the reasons?, well here you go, the BC liberals have cut spending on the justice system. Yes they are way over paid for sloppy work and should be held accountable(prosecutors) and the AG dept.

Less money, not more, for B.C.'s justice system

Good reading with charts.

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/ ... ice-system

[CorkSoaker]

It seems that the people that are being very overpaid to operate our legal system should be locked up for fraud. They have no morals grounds on which to recieve pay for this type of incompetent bungling.

What good would that do? They'd probably just have their charges stayed anyways for taking too long to go to trial. What this highlights is a major systemic issue. BC and many other provinces have cut back on resources being allocated to the courts. This issue is also likely to grow with the way our system works and the current ideologies we have governing this country. At the federal level you have a law and order type government expanding the criminal code and attaching mandatory minimums to a bunch of crimes. These type of things can and will increase the amount of cases going to trial and further bunching up an already clogged court system, which the provincial government bears the majority of the cost of.

[james-d]

Key phrase corksoaker as you stated (the way our justice system works), that is a joke. Hasn't worked for a long time.The only reason may be because the courts are just as crooked as those they have go through the system.You just never know.

[CorkSoaker]

Key phrase corksoaker as you stated (the way our justice system works), that is a joke. Hasn't worked for a long time.The only reason may be because the courts are just as crooked as those they have go through the system.You just never know.

Well your definition of what or what does not work differs from mine.

[WhatThe]

You reap what you sow. This is what you get with mandatory minimums, ineffective drug policy, prohibition, hard on crime initiatives, backwards social policy, chronic underfunding of education and healthcare, turning blindeyes to corruption... The list goes on.
You people that approve of this have no one to thank but yourselves. Wage war on the middle class and poor while the rich and in power get away with murder. Good job people, Distracted by shiny objects.

[Ken7]

Key phrase corksoaker as you stated (the way our justice system works), that is a joke. Hasn't worked for a long time.The only reason may be because the courts are just as crooked as those they have go through the system.You just never know.

You are correct, system failure!

The problem is Judges here, drag matters out. I've been involved in Criminal Matters for many years. It appears trials in BC take 50% longer, not sure why. That causes a back-log in the court system.What could change all this is have a high profile court. Use it for any Indictable cases only.

Secondly, vote Judges in instead of appointing them. If Judges were evaluated on how well or poorly they perform, they would not be re-elected. You would see them pick up their heels, it appears they think they are next to the BIG GUY!

[CorkSoaker]

Secondly, vote Judges in instead of appointing them. If Judges were evaluated on how well or poorly they perform, they would not be re-elected. You would see them pick up their heels, it appears they think they are next to the BIG GUY!

No

http://www.castanet.net/news/Law-Matters/75794/Thankfully-Judges-are-appointed

[steven lloyd]

What this highlights is a major systemic issue. BC and many other provinces have cut back on resources being allocated to the courts. This issue is also likely to grow with the way our system works and the current ideologies we have governing this country. At the federal level you have a law and order type government expanding the criminal code and attaching mandatory minimums to a bunch of crimes. These type of things can and will increase the amount of cases going to trial and further bunching up an already clogged court system, which the provincial government bears the majority of the cost of.

There are indeed a number of systemic failures in the system. It is an overburdened and clogged bureaucracy, and yet just recklessly cutting spending without any idea of who does what has proven to be a massive and costly failure as well. The system certainly does need to be streamlined and I know there are already deliberate and calculated efforts being made in that regard. The reckless cuts that occurred set things back and incurred greater and unnecessary costs but work is being done to redress those mistakes. No one is suggesting that throwing money at a problem is the solution - far from it, in fact. On the other hand, recklessness never has and never will be a prudent course of action.

I am very surprised by the comments that Judges are behind the delays in Court – especially by posters who claim and I had thought had some knowledge of the Court system. Judges I know are the first to get annoyed with delays and I’ve seen them get quite angry with defence lawyers who are unprepared or use stall tactics. The worst thing that could ever happen, and something we should be very grateful for and proud of as Canadians is that are Judges are not elected.

Thankfully, Judges are appointed
May 29, 2012 / 7:00 am

In Canada, our judges are appointed, not elected. For that reason, we are very, very lucky.

Some people, however, think that judges should be elected. To those people: you are wrong.

Here is why…

Consider your typical political election; often, there are misrepresentation of facts, evasive answers, and frequent photo-ops. The message is often lost and elections often degrade into advertising campaigns.

I would like to think that those who are elected are the best people for the job; but, I am not always so sure.

For judges, this is system that exists in the United States of America. Hopeful judges have to campaign and their previous decisions are then scrutinized by the public, who, by large, have done little or no research to actually question those decisions.

So, it isn’t surprising that judges, like politicians, make decisions that they think will affect their chances of re-election.
This happens in politics all the time.

Consider the Federal Conservative’s decisions to create harsher sentences for crimes, despite argument and evidence that harsher sentences do NOT lower or deter crime. So, why are they doing it then? Answer: votes.

In America, when judges are elected, they, too, make decisions that will help them get re-elected into office. For instance, American judges often levy very strict (and often unjustified) sentences on offenders, so that they don’t appear lenient to the voting public.

I do not envy Americans for having that system.

For an illustration of what it is like to have elected judges, consider the following New York Times article from 2006, describing a system in which nearly three quarters of judges (who were elected) are not lawyers (and have little or no legal training/knowledge): In Tiny Courts of N.Y., Abuses of Law and Power.

Of course, the article’s material isn’t representative of all of America; but, it does provide a glimpse into the problem of using elections to find judges (i.e. that the best people for the job aren’t always elected).

In Canada, the process is very different. I will summarize it briefly.

First, lawyers who apply to become a judge must have been a lawyer for at least 10 years.

Screening committees then review the applicants based on several factors and make recommendations to the government (for appointment to the bench).

The factors that are considered include a keen intellect, proficiency in the law and in ethics, the ability to listen, the capacity to exercise sound judgment, a sense of consideration for others, patience, and a willingness to learn. An applicant’s courtesy, honesty, and humility are also considered, as well as their dedication to the public good, often demonstrated by pro bono work.

Selection committees will also interview lawyers and judges who have worked with or against the applicant. The committees are interested in the applicant’s interpersonal skills and whether or not an applicant engaged in ‘sharp’ conduct in his/her legal career.

If the applicant passes all the hurdles, then the government chooses among those applicants who have been recommended by the committees.

Also know that there are more applicants than openings (so the competition is fierce).

In P.E.I., there are openings approximately every 10 years. For federal court appointments across Canada, there may be 500 applicants a year, but only 50 to 60 appointments are made.

Once appointed, judges cannot easily be removed and are free to make decisions without influence from any powerful outside sources. Their decisions are reviewable by appellate courts, rather than the voting public.

I understand that some people think that judges’ decisions should be reviewable by the voting public, which would occur if judges were elected.

However, to do so would mean that judges’ decisions would pander to public opinion.

If judges pandered to public opinion, their decisions would be based on popularity, rather than legal principles. Judges would be hesitant to make correct (and unpopular) decisions, such as those that impact minority groups/interests.

It isn’t surprising that people sometimes get frustrated with a judge’s decision. When a judge makes a decision, one party will always be disappointed.

But, it is surprising, however, that the media sometimes does a poor job in accurately reporting the facts of a judge’s decision. This is a ‘special’ pet peeve of mine (to say it lightly).

My advice: get all the facts of a case before you criticize a judge’s decision. And be thankful that judges are appointed, not elected.

http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-st ... .htm#75794

[james-d]

The reason judges are elected in the US, Is because they will basically do what the electorate expects them to do. Having Judges appointed is wrong. Judges here answer to no one once appointed at least not with any fear of reprimand. After all,, they were appointed. That would be like addmitting to making a poor appointment. we couldn't have that. Now if you do what your voting public wants you to do, Like actually trying to protect society, By popular demand you will most likely get re-elected as they do in the US, I quess thats why a lot of criminals go to jail in the US. Not like here, Where they get a short all expense paid holiday, Where they are , You guessed it Treated better then our seniors. Then they are set free after their short stay because we don't have enough jails to house them, Pity. But our govt can give away 500 bazillion dollars to help some poor country, that needs our help.LOL that is the biggest joke of all. Harper and ALL crooked polititions should be ashamed!!!

[CorkSoaker]

The reason judges are elected in the US, Is because they will basically do what the electorate expects them to do. Having Judges appointed is wrong. Judges here answer to no one once appointed at least not with any fear of reprimand. After all,, they were appointed. That would be like addmitting to making a poor appointment. we couldn't have that. Now if you do what your voting public wants you to do, Like actually trying to protect society, By popular demand you will most likely get re-elected as they do in the US, I quess thats why a lot of criminals go to jail in the US. Not like here, Where they get a short all expense paid holiday, Where they are , You guessed it Treated better then our seniors. Then they are set free after their short stay because we don't have enough jails to house them, Pity. But our govt can give away 500 bazillion dollars to help some poor country, that needs our help.LOL that is the biggest joke of all. Harper and ALL crooked polititions should be ashamed!!!

I get bothered when others feed trolls so I am a bit ashamed of myself for doing such, but did you read the link that was attached in the two posts above yours? Or is it an issue of comprehension?

[steven lloyd]

I get bothered when others feed trolls so I am a bit ashamed of myself for doing such, but did you read the link that was attached in the two posts above yours? Or is it an issue of comprehension?

In addition to the reasons clearly laid out in the article why apointing Judges is, in fact, much more effectual than electing them, there is also the fact for every decision made Judges have to write out a "Reason For Decision" which is open to both review and appeal by higher Courts. One thing you'll find quite common on these boards though is people having strong and inflexible opinions on subjects they know little to nothing about and have no interest in educating themselves on.

[Donald G]

There is absolutely no excuse for the stupidity of laws and a legal system that permit identified criminals to get off scott free on technical grounds. The change in the INTERPRETATION of our charter has changed what used to be a search for truth and justice into a lawyer enriching exercise in theoretical law. The delay in a lot of criminal court cases is the fact that far too many technical arguments (and increased billable hours) are now permitted, causing the case to be repeatedly remanded over and over and over again. The damn lawyer enriching, criminal releasing stupidity has got to stop.

Thanks to Pierre Elliot Trudeau and his band of liberal extremists.