Stunning end to Hell's Angels Trial

[oneh2obabe]

A Superior Court judge put an abrupt end to the first murder trial to go before a jury in Operation SharQc after ruling the Crown withheld evidence from the defence for years.

In a stunning decision delivered at the Gouin Courthouse on Friday, Superior Court Justice James Brunton ended the murder trial of five men who were alleged to have been members of the Sherbrooke chapter of the Hells Angels, between 1994 and 2002, while the biker gang was at war with its rivals across Quebec. The men — Claude Berger, 66; Yvon Tanguay, 65; François Vachon, 43; Sylvain Vachon, 48; and Michel Vallières, 48 — were all charged with conspiracy to commit murder over the eight-year period but also faced first-degree murder charges as well. As a result of Brunton’s ruling, they all walked away free men on Friday.

About 10 prosecutors who were in the room looked stunned by Brunton’s criticisms about how they had only disclosed key evidence to the defence a month ago.

Full article
http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-n ... -the-crown

[Madhue]

This could be expensive for the Taxpayers.

[Treblehook]

So what can the average Joe do about BS decisions by the court, that allow all of these men accused of murder to walk free? Not much it seems. Full disclosure to the defense, as required of the Crown, is sometimes a very complicated affair. Maybe that full disclosure was left until shortly before trial because of a need to protect prosecution witnesses from becoming murder victims as well. Who knows? But one thing is for sure, the prosecutors didn't make the decision not to disclose until a month before the trial because they wanted to lose the case. It doesn't work that way!!!

[oneh2obabe]

Maybe that full disclosure was left until shortly before trial because of a need to protect prosecution witnesses from becoming murder victims as well. Who knows? But one thing is for sure, the prosecutors didn't make the decision not to disclose until a month before the trial because they wanted to lose the case. It doesn't work that way!!!

From the article:
Brunton’s decision involved a development in the trial that occurred on Sept. 10, exactly one month after the jury had begun hearing evidence. The Crown told Brunton it was in possession of new evidence concerning two previous investigations into the Hells Angels — dubbed Projects Snack and Cadbury. Defence lawyers had been demanding the Crown disclose the evidence pertaining to those investigations since April 2011. In December 2011, the Crown responded to the request simply by stating “The documents requested are not in our possession.” In April 2014, a different Superior Court judge ruled the Crown abused procedure by not having disclosed the documents in question to the defence back in 2009.

When the evidence was finally disclosed to the defence last month they learned that it included statements that would have allowed them to challenge the credibility of Sylvain Boulanger, a former Hells Angel who turned informant and the most important witness in Operation SharQc. The evidence involved the murder of Sylvain Reed, a man who was killed on March 12, 1997.

[FreeRights]

One would think that by this day and age, Crown prosecutors would be able to avoid having cases like this one thrown out of court based on their actions and not innocence or guilt.

[GordonH]

Bottom-line the Crown *blanked*-up. Way to go, with Crown Prosecutors like this who needs defence attorneys.

[Treblehook]

Given the information provided by [oneh2obabe] it would seem that the crown did screw up, resulting in the charges being thrown out of court. Truly a situation where justice was not the end result. Since it is highly unlikely these men were not the ones who conspired to commit the murder and who were charged with the related offenses, no justice resulted from this court. Nobody is being held accountable for the murder of the victim. These cases take so long to come to court and in this instance, the defense counsel had [apparently] specifically asked for disclosure from the previous operations. It is really hard to understand why the prosecution couldn't figure out that their withholding disclosure might well result in the case being tossed. Incompetence???

[oneh2obabe]

Superior Court Justice James Brunton didn't mince words in his judgment.

<snip>Brunton said the prosecutors adopted “a desire to win at all costs to the detriment to the fundamental principles that form the foundation of our penal justice system.”

“No other remedy can make up for the abuse described in this judgment,” Brunton said in the conclusion of his decision.

“This abuse goes beyond negligence or even harassment. It constitutes an attack on the fundamental principles of fairness that all criminal cases should benefit from.”<snip>

Only one acronym describes how the Crown handled this case ... FUBAR.

[Hassel99]

Can we charge the crown prosecutors with obstruction of justice?

[maryjane48]

One would think that by this day and age, Crown prosecutors would be able to avoid having cases like this one thrown out of court based on their actions and not innocence or guilt.

um you do know canada has a charter of rights and freedoms right? if the crown bends the rules , they are no better than the accused . its simple concept

[Treblehook]

It would seem that the prosecutors brought the administration of justice into disrepute. Surely there must be some consequences for such conduct... especially when it appears they acted that way by design rather than it having been an honest mistake.

[oneh2obabe]

An old article, but yes, Crown Attorneys can be sued.

WINDSOR, Ont. -- Crown attorneys can be sued for negligence, and not just for the more difficult-to-prove allegation of acting in "bad faith," according to a Winnipeg judge's decision that could have significant implications for the Canadian justice system.

<snip> "Based on the findings that came out of Justice LeSage's report, we think there's more than sufficient evidence to establish liability on behalf of all of the defendants," said Robins, who thinks this week's decisions shows prosecutors have a duty to release all evidence to the defence." <snip>

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/stor ... 9c46b2beaa

[FreeRights]

um you do know canada has a charter of rights and freedoms right? if the crown bends the rules , they are no better than the accused . its simple concept

....That's correct, and that's exactly what I said. Crown Prosecutors should not be making gross errors like this in this day and age.