Another Ridiculous Judicial Decision

[Donald G]

Judge Rideout earned another chapter in the book being written about how the Lawyers and Judiciary are completely destroying what used to be a reasonably good Canadian Criminal Court System.

After a Drug Kingpin hid out in India for seven years to avoid having to stand trial in Canada on Major Drug Charges. Judge Rideout arbitrarily dismissed the charges because in his opinion, the Drug Kingpin had been deprived of HIS CANADIAN constitutional rights.

Jesus, Joseph and Mary. An absolute disgrace and a new low in our march to legal hell in Canada. being proudly led by the men in black robes who most benefit from the system they have built

http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-st ... htm#123688

[driveangry]

Nothing they do surprises me any more, it's almost predictable.

[simnut]

Yea, pretty soon incest marriage will be a right. Maybe a good thing we have diversity of beliefs to balance, or attempt to balance sensiblity!

[erinmore3775]

DG wrote: Judge Rideout earned another chapter in the book being written about how the Lawyers and Judiciary are completely destroying what used to be a reasonably good Canadian Criminal Court System.

I have no doubt that there was enough evidence to proceed with a trail but Gill's lawyer... "petitioned the court for a stay of proceedings, arguing that the delay was a violation of his charter rights and prejudiced his ability to defend himself.

Following the rules of procedure and precedents, Judge Gregory Rideout agreed. In his judgement he said,

[i]"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.''

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.vancouversun.com/news/Judge+tosses+charges+against+accused+drug+kingpin+after+nearly/10239785/story.html#ixzz3ETLn3t9q


The lawyer for Gill asked for a stay and it would appear that the judge interpreted the law correctly. The fault here lies not with the judge, as you suggest, but the Crown attorneys. The Crown had nine years to request Gill's extradition from India, they did not even file the initial papers. He lived openly in India and even renewed his passport during his long visit to India.

It was obvious that the Crown knew where he was AND had enough evidence to pursue a case. I would suggest that this is an example of our over worked Crown attorney system, rather than an example of an incompetent judge. After all fiscal cutbacks in the provincial prosecutory service have been in effect for about 10 years now. Perhaps your criticisms would be better aimed at the Ministry of Justice of British Columbia and the BC Prosecution Service.

[Donald G]

To erinmore3775 ...

Spoken like a true lawyer who not only makes good money out of out completely broken Criminal Court System, but like all lawyers plays a significant hand in seeing that it does not change back to the efficient, effective and much more truth and justice based system that we had up until PE Trudeau and his extremist left wing Liberal Zealots decided to change things.

IMO changing the Criminal Court System into little more than a debate in legal theory, filled with far more billable hours, was the reward Trudeau gave lawyers in exchange for their cooperation. What was a reasonable system for determining truth has become a lawyer enriching disaster in terms of justice.

Lawyers and criminals and those who support them love it. The bottom line is that another identified criminal goes free because judicial decisions can NOT bring our system of law into disrepute.

[FreeRights]

You cannot blame the judge or the defense lawyers for this, you have to lay blame on the prosecution. By not looking at pursuing the criminal overseas shows either disinterest or negligence on their part. Canadian law, good or bad, is currently as it is. The prosecution failed at complying with it, and as it were, the judge made the correct decision.

[zzontar]

What they need to do is instead of blaming the system, publish the name(s) of those responsible. It's amazing how much harder people will try when it's them personally who are held responsible instead of "the system." It's not a system that was supposed to look into the request for extradition, it's an individual(s).

[cutter7]

Thanks erinmore, its always nice to be able to read the whole story.. It is clear to me the judge made the only decision he could legally make.

[driveangry]

Has Canada ever extradited anyone from India, it's not the first time someone has run away to another country to avoid persecution knowing they will not be extradited. Maybe prosecution knew they wouldn't get him back, and saved the tax payers a lot of money. A lot of what if's. The fact that this guy ran away should have been enough.

[Donald G]

To zzontar ...

The name of the two lawyers responsible WERE published; PE Trudeau and Judge Rideout.

Both are responsible for legislating and interpreting the rewritten and reinterpreted Canadian Bill of Rights to mean that if a drug kingpin hid out in another country for seven years, all charges in Canada, no matter how serious, would be nullified.

Since it WAS NOT that way before our Bill of Rights was changed (under the previous Diefenbaker Bill of Rights) I blame them personally as being the cause of the problem; Trudeau for rewriting the Bill of Rights and Rideout for perpetuating the breakdown in our Criminal Law system.

[Donald G]

To FreeRights ...

Demanding that the Crown do something that is THEORETICALLY possible but all but IMPOSSIBLE IN REALITY is a very typical defence lawyer tactic supported by the Canadian Criminal Court Judiciary. The fact that Judge Rideout bought into the Criminal Law Charade is not surprising. After all he is also a lawyer out to protect the new and very lucrative interpretation of the Bill of Rights determined by Lawyer Trudeau and the lawyers he personally picked and appointed to see that the BOR was "properly" interpreted.

IMO, any other profession would be put in jail for what they have done and continue to do in protecting criminals from facing justice. In many ways like judges in the U.S. selling protection to Al Capone during the dirtiest of the dirty criminal run days of Chicago.

[bob vernon]

Lawyer Trudeau was PM more than 30 years ago. Steverino is the PM right now. With a majority. He could make some changes, couldn't he? Or does he care? Is he too busy with other stuff, like ensuring himself seats on boards of directors of big banks and big oil and gas, and big pipeline corporations? Who does Steve work for anyway?

He talked all about law and order and making big changes during his campaign speeches. All talk and no action. He fooled those people who voted for him. And most of them still blame a guy who was Prime Minister 30 years ago. Blame the guy who's there now and has been for many years for doing nothing.

[Donald G]

To Bob Vernon

I assume that you do not know that the Criminal Court Judiciary in Canada is completely independent of political interference, except as appointed judges can be INFLUENCED to interpret laws in ways desired by the political party in power.

The judges appointed by Trudeau "more than 30 years ago" are the ones who USED THEIR OPINION OF THE MODIFIED Bill of Rights to change the rules of evidence. It is his rewriting of the BOR and INTERPRETATION of Trudeaus modified BOR that resulted in criminals walking free when trials were, IN THE PERSONAL OPINION OF THE PRESIDING JUDGE, delayed too long, as in this case.

The fact that Trudeau and the judges he selected and appointed also resulted in judges being able to PERSONALLY decide whether evidence that went to prove guilt or innocence should or should not be admitted was part of the same disgraceful package. Up until then evidence that went to prove guilt or innocence WAS admitted at trial and the Judge or Jury could make of it what they wanted.

Your historical knowledge of our Canadian Criminal Law legal system is sadly lacking. "Steveno" knows our law well enough that he knows he can change the law but not the interpretation Judges have given to our laws and Bill of Rights since Trudeau changed the law and the judges. Lawyers decided that matter on their own ... in the interests of freedom of course.

[FreeRights]

To FreeRights ...

Demanding that the Crown do something that is THEORETICALLY possible but all but IMPOSSIBLE IN REALITY is a very typical defence lawyer tactic supported by the Canadian Criminal Court Judiciary. The fact that Judge Rideout bought into the Criminal Law Charade is not surprising. After all he is also a lawyer out to protect the new and very lucrative interpretation of the Bill of Rights determined by Lawyer Trudeau and the lawyers he personally picked and appointed to see that the BOR was "properly" interpreted.

IMO, any other profession would be put in jail for what they have done and continue to do in protecting criminals from facing justice. In many ways like judges in the U.S. selling protection to Al Capone during the dirtiest of the dirty criminal run days of Chicago.

Is it all that impossible for them to have tried to extradite him? I don't see defense lawyers as the enemy, they are paid to argue that the criminal code supports the claim that a crime was committed, ensure that they evidence is there and just to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offense, and ensure that the same rights guaranteed to all Canadians were respected.

Whether the above should be guaranteed to all Canadians is a separate discussion, but a defense lawyers job is to make sure they are applied. The judge agreed, so I don't know where the outrage comes from if not towards the rights themselves. But can you imagine the outrage if Canadians were not afforded these rights?

[Donald G]

To Free Rights ...

The bottom line is that you are adamant that Canadians benefited because a Major Drug Trafficker went free on a built in Criminal Court technicality that had absolutely nothing to do with guilt or innocence. And you are trying to pass off as necessary to freedom.

Typical lawyer speak for theoretical law being applied to real life situations with reprehensible results.

You and the PE Trudeau Zealots would have been completely compatible.

As for the rest of Canadians .....