Another Ridiculous Judicial Decision

[Donald G]

To FreeRights ...

I defy you to point out one error in fact in any of the comments I have made.

Next you'll be telling me that it was right to burn the Witches at the stake in Salem Mass because a Judge deemed it proper justice.

The present interpretation of our constitution causes serious and non correctable injustices.

[wanderingman]

Like I asked you "freerights|"


show us all please where its "written" that a EIPOS can be charged with a major drug crime then escape to india for 10 years and then return to Canada and cant be tried because it violates his rights somehow?? show me this written statuate please?
you cant and this judge is a moron whom should not be judging anything but a gong show.

[oneh2obabe]

The Crown knew where the person was and didn't start the extradition process to have him returned to Canada which resulted in the appropriate ruling.

Right to be tried within a reasonable time

Section 11(b) provides that
“11. Any person charged with an offence has the right...

(b) to be tried within a reasonable time;”

Section 11(b) can be taken to provide a right to a speedy trial.[3] The criteria by which the court will consider whether the rights of an accused under this provision have been infringed were set out in R. v. Askov (1990). In R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the test set out in Askov, noting that the accused bears a certain onus to demonstrate actual prejudice as a result of delay. In cases of very extensive delay, however, the court found that prejudice could be inferred.

Later, in R. v. Finta (1994), the Supreme Court clarified that the period of "unreasonable delay" begins at the time the charge is laid. This was in response to a case in which charges were laid 45 years after the alleged offences occurred; and that this was suggested to be an unreasonable delay. Reasonableness depends, in part, on the amount of investigative work that is involved, the number of interested parties and their locations, and/or the complexity of the case. Reasonableness also relates to local court resources and/or how they compare to other jurisdictions. Other elements in determining reasonableness of delay could include delays by either the Crown attorney or defense counsel, or even the Court itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_El ... d_Freedoms

[Donald G]

to oneH2Obabe ...

You are correct that a person should have a right "to be tried within a REASONABLE time" . I have no problem with that.

What I have a serious problem with is the Judge PERSONALLY INTERPRETING the law to mean that a MAJOR DRUG TRAFFICKER can hide out in India for years AND HAVE THAT TIME CONSIDERED A PART OF THAT "reasonable time". Another "built in" way to escape Canadian Justice based on the "Trudeauized" interpretation of our rewritten and reinterpreted (by lawyers) Bill of Rights.

That may sound good in theory but in reality it enables a MAJOR DRUG TRAFFICKER TO COMPLETELY ESCAPE JUSTICE through his own efforts to thwart Canadian Justice.

Absolutely asinine.

[oneh2obabe]

He was in India. The Crown knew where he was. Why didn't they start the extradition process to have him returned to face the charges?

[Donald G]

IMO the MAIN REASON that Judges throw even major cases out of court on the theoretical personal opinion grounds of "unreasonable delay" is to try to force the government to appoint more judges and crowns council. Strictly money and control of our criminal court system. Nothing whatever to do with justice.

The new Trudeau Bill of Rights is one of the main things that has greatly extended trial times, by being far more exacting of the police and providing far, far more "theoretical" defences that have nothing to do with whether the criminal actually committed the crime or not. Including the opportunity to expend billible hours to argue whether EACH piece of evidence should be admitted at trial or not.

Under the previous Bill of Rights ALL EVIDENCE THAT WENT TO PROVE GUILT OR INNOCENCE WAS ADMITTED AS EVIDENCE.

[Donald G]

Canada - India 1987 Extradition Agreement

http://cbi.nic.in/interpol/ext_treaties/Canada.pdf

[oneh2obabe]

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.

[Donald G]

Overview of Drug Laws in India. Note that Central or State Politicians have the right to absolve offenders of their drug crimes. Note that that power is given to the politicians. Not the courts.


http://www.antidrugs.gov.il/download/fi ... g-laws.pdf

[Donald G]

To oneH2Obabe ...

We will have to agree to disagree on that.

The present interpretation of the charter has been a complete disaster. This latest decision simply adds to the long and growing list of criminals who have been able to use the judicial interpretation of our charter to thwart justice and place society at risk.

The present interpretation serves the financial interests of lawyers and the well being of criminals first. The risk to society and justice come a poor second.

The previous Bill of Rights and interpretation put the search for truth and justice and the well being of society first.

I do NOT have contempt for our Criminal Court Justice System. I DO have contempt for those who destroyed a reasonably good justice system and replaced it with a system that best serves lawyers and criminals.

[Donald G]

oneH2Obabe ...

You realize of course that the Supreme Court that gave the new INTERPRETATION of the rewritten Canadian Bill of Rights as a Supreme Court loaded with Trudeau appointments do you? Including the completely new "unreasonable delay" interpretation that is still permitting criminals to walk free without a trial.

And that, since the new interpretation of the charter, Judges and Lawyers themselves are responsible for the lengthy trials and hearings in criminal court? Not to mention the vastly increased costs of our Criminal Court System through many more appeals and billable hours?

You quote the law as if it was some utopian truth ordained by God. Both the law and, more importantly, the interpretation of the law is nothing more than rules made by very fallible human beings dressed in black robes to impress "the people".

Keep in mind that all of the SUCCESSFUL appeals are based on nothing more than the mistakes made by the preceding judge. Yet when the police make the same mistake the charges are often dismissed. Another judicial opinion.

As an equally intelligent Canadian, Ms. Twain, said in one of her songs; "That don't impress me much".

[Donald G]

To oneH2Obabe ...

Can you identify what offence committed in India would be identical to the offence with which the Major Drug Trafficker was charged in Canada? That would, in the absence of the political interference allowed under their drug laws, enable Canada to make an application for extradition?

Even if one accepted that there was an obligation on the Crown to FORCE the accused to appear in Court in Canada, which I do not.

Does that mean that, even within Canada there is now an obligation to arrest people from all over Canada and the rest of the world on any charges and return them for court or have all of such charges similarly thrown out? It will entail spending millions and millions of additional taxpayer dollars to do so. Most of which will again be scooped up by lawyers being given additional access to the public money trough.

There are probably several thousand "stay away" warrants, for non appearance in court, being held by the various provinces across Canada. The offence does not justify spending the money to return them for court. Do we stay all of those THOUSANDS of charges and let the criminals also escape justice too ... in the name of justice of course.

[driveangry]

He was in India. The Crown knew where he was. Why didn't they start the extradition process to have him returned to face the charges?

Has Canada ever extradited anyone from India ??

[Treblehook]

His extradition was/would have been in relation to extraditable offenses committed in Canada. In this case, it had nothing to do with any crime he may or may not have committed in India and whether any India offenses were prosecutable in Canada. I don't understand what this has to do with anything in this case. Irrelevant if I understand the circumstance correctly. The scumbag committed indictable offenses here in Canada [for which he could lawfully be extradited] and then ran off to India to escape prosecution. Were the charges not thrown by the learned judge on the basis of unreasonable delay because the Canadian prosecutor didn't elect to initiate the extradition process to have him brought back at our expense to answer to the charges?

[Donald G]

They have for murder. One not too long ago. But not for drug charges that I know of.

Canada holds warrants for many similar drug traffickers and other crimes who have scooted back to India (and other countries) to escape being tried for their crimes against Canadians.