Another Ridiculous Judicial Decision

[Donald G]

To my knowledge almost all extradition applications MUST be on the basis that the SAME crime is against the law in BOTH countries and that a similar penalty or minimum penalty is to be expected in both countries.

It is one of the MUST EXISTS of almost all extradition applications.

I do not know EXACTLY what offences the major drug trafficker was charged with in Canada, other than the fact that it involved a large amount of cocaine.

[erinmore3775]

Bottom line is the Crown didn't proceed with the extradition process and the Judge made the correct ruling. We know you hold the judicial system in contempt but, believe it or not, Judges do have parameters to follow when making decisions. You may not agree with their decisions but you don't have the level of legal education or experience they do.

I believe that the judge did make the correct ruling and I have searched for a case with a similar set of judgement circumstances. I believe that the Singleton case has the correct parallels.

http://www.nelsonstar.com/news/263731611.html Court dismisses appeal in Singleton case

"In one of the city’s longest-running legal sagas, Marvin Singleton, now 80, was convicted of stealing nearly half a million dollars from an estate of which he was executor during the 1980s and sentenced to three years in prison.

His lawyers asked for a stay of proceedings based on the argument that he was denied a trial within a reasonable time because police stopped looking for him for four years. Singleton, who was eventually arrested in Kansas in 2004, where he taught part-time at a community college, claimed he was not trying to hide.

However, the Crown attorneys were able to show that the RCMP actively sought Singleton in the US, sought information concerning his location from the family and associates, found him and arrested him, and that he spent two years in a US jail fighting extradition. Singleton's attorneys application for a stay under the Charter was denied because authorities had actively sought him and proceeded with extradition.

This is in marked contrast to the Gill case. Gill's lawyer applied for a stay. The argument being that when Gill left Canada for India no charges were pending. For ten years he lived openly in India and during that time applied for renewal of his Canadian passport twice. The Crown was fully knowledgeable about his whereabouts.

"An arrest warrant was issued for Arpinder Singh Gill on July 23, 2004, for conspiracy to import cocaine between B.C., Ontario, Quebec and the United States. Gill left Vancouver for India in September 2003."

"The Crown was fully able to request the extradition of Gill from India. For reasons which remain unexplained, the Crown failed to take any appropriate steps to request the extradition of Gill," he wrote in the judgment.

The Crown cited "prosecutorial and ministerial protection" for offering no explanation, but Rideout noted that there appeared to be no investigative strategy, no third-party safety interests, no national security interests or international protocols at stake.

"This lack of any explanation ultimately results in this court being unable to determine if the Crown exercised any improper motive or bad faith."

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/09/28/arpinder-singh-gill-charges-dropped_n_5891220.html

Since the neither the Crown nor the RCMP actively sought Gill until he returned to Canada while they had the opportunity to extradite him or even to proceed with a trial in absentia. The judge correctly agreed with the stay because of lack of effort by the Crown.

This decision represents not a failure of the Charter, not a failure of P.E. Trudeau, or a failure of the judiciary, but a failure of the provincial justice system and the funding provided to the Crown Attorneys' Office to pursue prosecutions. This problem was illuminated in Honourable Marc Rosenberg review of the Charter.

http://www.ontariocourts.ca/coa/en/ps/publications/twenty-five_years_later.htm
Twenty-Five Years Later: The Impact of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the Criminal Law

He says in section 4 of his paper:

"Section 11(b) guarantees an accused the right to a trial within a reasonable time. Has this guarantee had any impact on the pace of criminal litigation? One could easily point to our clogged provincial courts, especially those in large urban areas, operating right at, or even over, the Askov[49] limits, and conclude that the right to a speedy trial is an illusion. This, however, is too simplistic an approach. A better question to ask is, what would the situation be if there was no section 11(b) guarantee? What would the court dockets look like if there was no pressure on the government to continually expand criminal justice services lest Askov be repeated, resulting in the dismissal of another 50,000 cases?"

What he is pointing out is that if the Crown Attorneys' Offices are not properly funded, they cannot be expected to move cases forward in a timely manner. Cases like "Gill" that are off the immediate radar get pushed to the side. Extradition is a costly and lengthy process. Funds or expertise are not always available, especially here in BC. I firmly believe that if extradition had been sought, it would have been granted, and that a timely prosecution and perhaps eventual conviction would have been obtained.

I am aware DG that I am not going to change your opinion about this matter nor about the Charter. However, I present this information for the benefit of others. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution are for the benefit and protection of the many. They outline how our laws and rules may be written and applied. The Charter is open for interpretation and rightly so because our society is constantly evolving. However, if a law, rule, or regulation is overturned through application of the Constitution or the Charter our legislatures have the right to amend or rewrite the affected law, rule or regulation. This is currently the case for Bills 26 & 28 in BC, federal prostitution laws, and provincial and federal rules and regulations involving voting. The Constitution and Charter protects all of us equally, whether we like how it is applied in all cases or not. They protect us against ideological tyranny and ensure that we can have this discussion of a forum such as this. There are those in Hong Kong and Cuba that would really enjoy the protection of our Constitution and Charter right now.

[Edited to add missing newspaper quote]

[Donald G]

To erinmore3775 ...

A correct ruling according to who? Lawyers? A correct ruling in real life would hold criminals responsible.

You are obviously a lawyer making far more money off of the present (Trudeau) charter and interpretation than you were off of the previous (Diefenbaker) Charter and interpretation.

I would be surprised if you did NOT support the present system that favours lawyers and criminals. In due time society will realize that you and the criminal law society have completely abdicated their responsibility to the Canadian people and hold you accountable accordingly.

What happened is what happens when the people who most stand to gain monetarily from the system are put in charge of the system. What they have done using theoretical law IMO is absolutely disgraceful when viewed in real life.

[erinmore3775]

DG:

Would you be willing to provide a comment on the under funding of the provincial Crown Attorneys' Office? Even if the "Diefenbaker Charter of Rights was still in effect, current budgets would not allow for the full implementation of the "rights to fundamental justice" as outlined in the original parliamentary bill of 1960.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Bill_of_Rights (for easy reference)

Even in the 60's Crown Attorneys were regularly underfunded by their provincial governments. Something that Diefenbaker was acutely aware of as a lawyer. In many ways he hoped his legislation would change things. It did not. Neither did the Charter of Rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution Act.

Perhaps if Crown Attorney offices were properly funded and staffed, the problems brought to light by the Gill case would not exist. After all the Charter did work in the Singleton case. The lawyers in both cases, no matter which "charter of rights" was in effect would have had the ability to request a stay of proceedings because of "due process."

[Daspoot]

All the rulings are wrong decisions, all the precedents are incorrect judgements, everyone is wrong except one it would seem.

At some point you have to just say it stinks, but it's legally sound and move on with life. not everything is fair in life, if you can't "acknowledge and move on" it will end up eating away at you.

It does stink, and it's not fair, but there is a good sized list of legal precedent and interpretation that support it. It sucks, but there it is.

[Donald G]

To erinmore3775 ...

The huge delay in criminal trials is primarily the fault of Criminal Court lawyers who were and remain supportive of the rewritten (Trudeau) Bill of Rights and the Lawyers and former Lawyers (aka judges) who reinterpreted the Trudeau Bill of Rights in order to give lawyers and judges all but complete control over the police by controlling the rules of evidence.

Trudeau all but doubled the "billable hours" as an enticement to lawyers to support his changes. You can not double the time required for a trial by allowing theoretical legal arguments without halving the efficiency and doubling the time required. IMO lawyers MADE the shortage of lawyers and judges take place in pursuing their own selfish interests.

The vastly increased number of appeals and retrials offered as a result of the inconsistency permitted in judicial personal opinions under the reinterpreted Bill of Rights also adds a great deal of additional time demands on the system.

It is also my opinion that judges are throwing out trials due to "unreasonable delay" in an effort to FORCE government to spend a great deal more of taxpayer money on the collective criminal court system.

[Donald G]

To erinmore3775 ...

The drastic changes made to the interpretation of our Canadian Bill of Rights has also added significant time to the greatly expanded effort that the police are required to make in order to provide evidence adequate to prove a routine charge in court.
Impaired Driving under the Criminal Code is a classic example.

Because so many theoretical defences had been developed by lawyers and accepted by judges B.C. had to go to an administrative system to stop the carnage being caused on our highways by drunk, intoxicated, impaired and over .08 drivers.