Shannon Kari (National Post) – A stunning admission by a senior RCMP officer that he drafted a bogus memo to cover up concerns about police wiretap methods has led to the collapse of a major drug prosecution in northern Ontario and raised questions about wiretapping in at least 30 investigations.
Federal prosecutors in Sault Ste. Marie stayed trafficking charges this week in Project Omax, a long-running investigation that allegedly uncovered a “multi-kilo” cocaine ring linked to the Hells Angels in Quebec.
The decision to stay the charges comes after testimony revealed a fabricated memo about wiretapping concerns by RCMP Sergeant John Roskam, a long-time member of the force who was head of the wiretap unit in Ontario.
Sgt. Roskam, who insisted he acted on his own, revealed under cross-examination last November that there was both a fake memo and a real memo in responding to lawyers’ concerns about wiretaps and whether the force was not complying with court orders.
“I was flabbergasted that a senior police officer would fabricate disclosure in a criminal matter,” said Michael Lacy, the defence lawyer who discovered the existence of the real and fake memos last fall when he asked provincial prosecutors in an unrelated case for documents related to RCMP wiretap procedures.
“The RCMP deceived the Crown as well,” said the defence lawyer, who called for an outside police force to begin a criminal investigation.
The fabricated document was turned over to Mr. Lacy in the spring of 2009 in Project Omax, when he asked for disclosure of internal memos that discussed if the RCMP was “live monitoring” intercepted phone calls, as required by court orders.
Live monitoring means that if a phone line is wiretapped, an RCMP employee is supposed to be listening to the calls. If someone on the line is not a “named target,” then the monitor must hang up.
An earlier internal RCMP memo confirmed that court orders were not being followed properly.
The internal memo issued in April 2008 by RCMP Sergeant Gabriel DiVito, a supervisor of the “Special I” unit in Ontario, noted that “on occasion” monitors were “not adhering to the legal requirements” of the court orders.
“I cannot guess how the present case before the courts will unfold and what the consequences of our actions will be,” wrote Sgt. DiVito, who urged RCMP staff to comply with the court orders.
It was later revealed in court that the RCMP had concerns about the actions of its wiretap monitors in 30 projects involving the force.
Sgt. DiVito moved on to another position and was succeeded by Sgt. Roskam, who was in charge of supervising all RCMP “wire rooms” in Ontario.
The fabricated memo turned over by Sgt. Roskam — which was presented as evidence — did not include the concerns expressed in the real memo.
“You knew when you were creating this document that you were committing what you believed to be a criminal offence, right,” asked defence lawyer Mr. Lacy.
“Hmm, hmm,” responded Sgt. Roskam, who then answered “yes” when pressed on whether his actions may have violated the law. The senior officer described it as “bad judgment” to produce the fake memo.
Sgt. Roskam was still in charge of the wiretap unit when he testified in court last fall and also a part of the RCMP security operations at the Vancouver Olympics, court documents state.
RCMP spokesman Sergeant Marc LaPorte said yesterday only that Sgt. Roskam is facing an internal “code of conduct” investigation.
The Crown “reached the conclusion there was no longer a reasonable prospect of conviction, based on the evidence available,” said Dan Brien, a spokesman for the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. The federal Crown spokesman stated that it is believed the fake memo was produced in only the Sault Ste. Marie case.
———
RCMP WIRETAP MEMOS: REAL VS. BOGUS
An April 30, 2008 internal memo sent by RCMP Sergeant Gabriel DiVito expressed concern about whether the “wire rooms” in Ontario were complying with the terms of court orders allowing the RCMP to intercept phone calls in several investigations. The following sentences are some of those that did not appear in a “fake” version, right letter, of the memo created and released in response to a request by the defendants in Project Omax for disclosure of any internal memos about wiretap procedures by the RCMP in Ontario.
WHAT WAS LEFT OUT
“It has come to my attention that on occasion our monitors have not been adhering to the legal requirements of this clause. I am of the opinion that we have to exercise our due diligence and ensure we intercept communications in accordance to the Judicial Orders.
I cannot guess how the present case before the courts will unfold and what the consequences of our actions will be, if any. During our briefings with investigators, we have to present to them the restrictions … and the impact on their investigations. With this in mind, we can collectively come up with a plan to address this issue. I do not believe we have the flexibility to do this any other way but to adhere to the Judicial Order.”
———
Q Did you take an oath as a non-commissioned
officer, an RCMP officer?
A Yes
Q Does the oath include an oath to uphold the laws of Canada?
A Yes
Q You knew when you were creating this document that you were committing what you believed to be a criminal offence, right?
A Hmm hmm.
Q Right?
A Yes
Q But you did it anyway, right? You did it anyway?
A Yes, yes we created the document.
I guess my last submission got lost in the cyber dark, however, suffice to say I think you should re-read the 3rd reference with an emphasis on what “impaired related” charges mean. No intention to mislead, pretty straight forward.
As far as Robinson, you will garner no argument from me there, except to say he is using the system created to save his proverbial posterior like most other despicable individuals trying to avoid consequences for their actions.
Jaffer is instructive. There is the taking of pleas to lesser charges across the country, not just BC.
The last article was referred to in order to illustrate that your assertion that reduced charges do not happen in BC was incorrect. There may be direction from government on a number of hot button issues, however, decisions are for the most part made on a case by case basis with the overriding government wishes in the forefront. They are not absolute and certainly not binding in a court room.
The 3rd article: – “Vancouver police officers issued 1,010 tickets, temporarily suspended 682 licences, handed out 240 driving prohibitions, impounded 16 vehicles and recommended 159 criminal charges related to impaired driving during the Christmas CounterAttack campaign.”
Is instructive in that the 159 recommended criminal charges “related” to impaired are laid in lieu of impaired charges for a number of reasons, some of which we have touched on in this discussion.
There is nothing misleading about that. The fact that you feel “misinterpretation” is a moot point. I just assumed you would be able to understand the article excerpt. I guess I expected too much. My apologies for not being more simple and direct in my correlation to your statement.
Of the points made in Oakes, you will not get any argument from me with respect to the actions of some lawyers as a result thereof.
What would you propose the Crown do when the have a bad case? Run the trial anyway, lose, and then shrug off the wasted taxpayer money?
The Rahim Jaffer incident is a curious one, and not one in British Columbia. As I stated, in BC, it is my understanding that Crowns are under orders to not allow pleading out to lesser includeds on Impaired charges.
Orion Hutchinson is dead. Monty Robinson, for whom I have the most contempt out of just about any Mountie out there, manipulated the system as he knew how.
You’re using the third Vancouver Sun article in a misleading way – I expect better of you.
My point on Oakes was not related to reverse onus – it was this: at some point, a legal argument is a new argument. But lawyers are master mimics and will stand on the shoulders of giants, making a new argument an old one very quickly.
Key words being ”if they have a good case” and “at least in a couple of regions I am familiar with”. I refer you to just a few article which you will find informative:
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Former+Rahim+Jaffer+guilty+careless+driving/2663305/story.html
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Motorcyclist+killed+crash+with+Mountie+also+impaired+report/2719722/story.html
“related charges” http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/Monday+Glance/2385262/story.html
Dec 3, 2009 from the Vancouver Sun:
“Still, the numbers are high. In 2006-2007, there were 14,596 incidents reported by police in B.C., with charges resulting in 8,772 of them. Of those 8,772 cases, just over 7,500 resulted in conviction, which is a good success rate of 86 per cent of those charged, but it’s just over 50 per cent of all reported incidents. The odds for conviction, for police at least, are not inspiring.”
Not in BC? check this out:
“He pleaded guilty to a lesser Motor Vehicle Act charge in January 2009
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Crown+seeks+year+term+2006+crash+that+killed+four/2126813/story.html#ixzz0p4j98jiB”
I will agree that legal aid is an important facet of our legal system. What I object to is the industry it has become including taking minor matters to the SCC and the attendant costs paid for with my tax dollars. Once the bane of legal income, 6 figures for legal aid primary practitioners is not uncommon these days.
With respect to the reverse onus, it is still with us in the law. As with all decisions concerning the charter, articulation and delineation with regard to purpose and intent are a common thread.
In BC, the reduction in charges by the Crown aren’t happening at present. If they have a good case, they are (at least in a couple of regions I am familiar with) under instructions to not accept pleas to lesser offences. I agree with this position taken by the AG’s office.
With regard to “flat fees”, they are very common as they are for “run of the mill” cases which most Impaired charges are. When you get an intersection of a novel case and an accused who can afford a good lawyer, then you get new case law made; after this, the novelty expires quickly and what was once unique becomes “run of the mill.” This is just how things evolve. A good example of this would be the advent of R. v. Oakes and how commonplace it has become in the almost 25 years since it was litigated at the SCC.
As for legal aide, I think we’re at a fundamental difference of opinion there. I, personally, think that the legal aide program is a great thing. If you have no money and the state is bringing its enormous resources to bear on you, you deserve legal protection. If the state always got it right, if the Mounties always got their man (the correct man) in an appropriate way, then this would be a non-issue. But, let’s face it, people screw up (see above for example) and I’d hate to be the one to go to jail because Dudley Do Right can’t figure out if his a**hole is punched or bored and because I couldn’t afford a lawyer to point out as much to the court.
And, really, the fraction of the budget that legal aide takes up (0.17% – 68.5 million out of 40.1 billion in expenditures) is minimal as the cost of pursuing justice (as compared to convictions).
1. Apologies to the individual for not delineating her criminal offences properly. All the same forward your observations.
2. You fail to take into account the reduction in charges by the Crown in some cases, including pleas to driving without due care and attention, which is incorrectly referred to as the lesser and included charge in some reports (its a motor vehicle act offence). This outcome is not uncommon, and displays the weakness of the overall cases. As with the Alexis awards, the convictions are not in line with the amount of charges laid. Special dispensations by the courts are legion.
3. Upper range or not, you get what you pay for from prime legal talent. Flat fees are not common and are for the “run of the mill” cases. Depending on your ability to pay, you may be able to negotiate the fee. 68.5 million was the govt grant for legal aid in the province of BC for 09/10. Some other gems you may wish to mine:
http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2009_Sept_Update/sp/pdf/agency/lss.pdf
http://nccabc.pmhclients.com/images/uploads/NCCA_35years.pdf
4. We can all agree on this motherhood sentiment.
5. Better check out the site I listed and speak with the Salvation Army. As you will note, some situations are based on individual circumstances. Page 4 of the first a/n document is also instructive.
1) The woman in the anecdote did not get dinged with two Impaired charges. Her first charge was an impaired; her second was Drive While Prohib.
2) As stated earlier, regardless of whining and sniveling, the mandatory minimums (including administrative sanctions) for a conviction in BC is about $5,000 and 12 – 15 mos. of no driving (followed by a period of being on an ignition interlock device, which I hadn’t pointed out earlier).
3) $300/hr is definitely in the upper ranges of what a competent defence lawyer will charge you in B.C. $175 – $200 and hour would be more realistic. Beyond that, it’s also quite common for a lawyer to charge a flat fee for representation in such matters.
4) If we all a) behaved appropriately, and b) owned up to our errors, the need for a legal system would be minimal. The vast majority of the legal system, especially criminal law, is dependent the human propensity to avoid the repercussions of our actions.
5) Finally, legal aide is generally only provided to those in BC who a) make less than the prescribed amount (I think around $1,400 net/mo for a single person), and b) face a good chance of jail time if convicted (but for things like breaches). Very rough calculations lead to the conclusion that a single person who makes more than $10/hr, full time would not qualify financially for legal aide in B.C. ($10/hr*2080 hrs/an*.7994 [average tax rate at that bracket]/12 months = $1,385/month). The bottom line is you have to be earning very little and facing jail time to qualify for legal aide in B.C.
Interesting figures Calvin. No doubt accurate to within 3.1 percentage points 19 times out of 20. Anything newer than 21 years ago? Demographics have changed.
The younger generation coming out of high school in the past few years, if my area is any indication, have a very healthy attitude towards driving and driving. The vast majority do not do it. Perhaps the education part is actually working. Regular visits by MADD, the police, former accident victims etc. seem to be making a difference.
I would agree that impaired driving is an industry. Much like other facets of society it is the bane of free enterprise and democracy.
How much less of an industry would it be if by some magical formula, we could turn the clock back to the basics for conviction on impaireds? The police officer pulls you over for suspicious driving, you reek of booze, you cannot perform the sobriety tests and with or without a datamaster reading, that is enough for a conviction, period. Add a court appearance the next day. Trial within a week, done.
With respect to the forfeiture of the vehicle, the provisions of the CDSA in that respect are routinely ignored by Crown Counsel usually with the proviso that it was part of the plea deal not to seek forfeiture, or hopes for a better sentence if the added burden on the accused is removed (not seeking forfeiture), or it just isnt worth enough. Can we count on the courts to enforce it for impaired convictions better than the CDSA? Can we expect the Crown prosecutors to agree? I for one am skeptical. What happens with 3rd party owners such as leases and rentals? In the case of drug traffickers, this is usually a slam dunk for non forfeiture. There will also be a Judge somewhere that will rule that it is to onerous or unconstitutional and refuse to do it. In the mean time, more appeals etc., while all seizures are on hold.
You said “Driving while impaired is a choice. If we choose the behaviour then we choose the consequences.” Pretty well sums it up.
So you posit that our inherent nature to imbibe, coupled with our instinct for economic/social survival is a cause for over litigation the legal system.
I don’t think I would entirely disagree with your theory, but would point out that the lengths we go to avoid responsibility for our actions married with lawyers willing to drain your purse, furthered by a legal system that shuns common sense would be more liable. What is worse, allowing or perpetrating?
Your economic penalties pale in comparison to 300 dollar an hour legal representation allowed to run amok. Even the vast mega cash cow legal aid costs are frightening. You will find this link instructive in how little it takes for legal aid.
http://ipp.lss.bc.ca/IPP_html_help.htm#Whats_new.htm
Your side of the equation would be remedied by two simple actions. One, don’t drink and drive, and two, when you get apprehended, take your lumps.
If you move from the remand court to the trial aspect, you will find a quick guilty plea with a hefty dose of whine and snivel gets you a light sentence, especially with the “I have a substance abuse problem” refrain. Sans several thousand in legal fees, you can surface less abused by the system.
A very sad anecdote that you relate. Perhaps you should share this with the BC government as an example of what could arise from their latest increased enforcement and penalties initiative. However, do not be surprised if they would use such an example to illustrate why one should not drink and drive, twice.
In a society where ALL police organizations have an extreme drinking culture we cannot expect major change. There are five drinking establishments at RCMP Depot. There have been cases where cadets have been terminated because of drunken behaviour directly facilitated by facilitators/Instructors.
Joseph F. Dietrich Dr.P.H., C.A.C. started the Members Assistance Program in the RCMP. He is one of the foremost authorities in the world on Police and Alcohol.
He conducted a survey of RCMP members in 1989. The Clarke Institute in Toronto was used as the mailing point. 3500 questionnaires were sent out to the members across Canada. 3043 members answered the questions.
The results were:
11% of members were having 7 or more drinks a day.
17% of members were having 5 or more drinks a day.
35% of members were having 3 or more drinks a day.
26% of members needed psychological intervention.
Most members would have had an alcoholic supervisor in the first five years of their service. (I did)
(My Opinion Revised)
Removing impaired drivers from our roads is an ongoing process. The courts have implemented cars with breathalysers, and educational courses, and now we as a society want to hold others responsible. (Hosts of functions where alcohol is served.)
Society expects us to drink and drive. Why else would there be parking lots built for drinking establishments?
Society my get more answers as to why we continue to have the problem of impaired driving by following the money trail. The police officer is in court testifying and receives overtime pay, society through the courts imposing fines, the increase insurance costs incurred by the accused, the auto body repair shops, defence lawyer’s fees, installing apparatus in vehicles to detect if the driver is impaired, business advertising in MADD magazine and more; all make money from the impaired driver. If someone is killed even the funeral home makes money. (Don’t forget to include the tax. HST in Ontario as of July 1st.)
Impair driving is a money making industry.
A major solution to the drinking and driving problem is forfeiting the driven vehicle to the crown upon conviction. (This not happening on mass.) There would have to be a faint hope close where application could be made to have the vehicle returned. (EG: rental or commercial vehicle.) The incidents of multiple convictions of an individual would be reduced. How many impaired drivers would be in a position to have three or four cars seized? No one would lend or rent a vehicle, or employ that person as a driver, after the first offence. I doubt that an impaired driver could afford to purchase three or four cars after each conviction and the vehicle was seized.
We as a society are now entering an age where other drugs as well as alcohol are being consumed and people are driving high. The case law in the criminal code demonstrates overwhelmingly that there is a good chance that an impaired driver using alcohol will be acquitted. The use of other drugs is not even detectable in most cases.
If a deer or moose is shot out of season or without a permit there is a possibility that the vehicle would be forfeited to the crown upon conviction. The least we can do is apply the same law to a human being.
Until real solutions are found and real issues are addressed; the loss of life due to impaired driving is just the cost of doing business to make money.
I have empathy for the people that have great hardships because of impaired driving convictions. If someone has to die, let it be the person who chose to drive drunk rather than the person who was killed by the a drunk driver and chose to drive sober.
Alcoholism is a disease. Driving while impaired is a choice. If we choose the behaviour then we choose the consequences.
Calvin Lawrence
C.G.L Consulting
Let’s look at the case of Over .08/Impaired, I’ll refer to both as “Impaired” for ease of reference.
Recent history has seen s. 255 amended to slowly increase the severity of punishment associated with an Impaired conviction. As you’re well aware, the current minimum sentence for a first conviction is a $1,000 fine (+VFS, although this is often waived) and a mandatory 1 year driving prohibition.
There are also the various administrative penalties that go along with this. I won’t bog down in detail, but in British Columbia, as an example, the total dollar figure that you’re likely facing for a first offence is around $5,000 with the offender being prohibited from driving for up to 15 months.
Naturally, this reflects the fact that society, at some levels, sees a need to curb instances of Impaired driving in order to save lives.
The problem is that the cumulative cost of an Impaired conviction can lead to a drastic lifestyle change. It can, and has, caused the loss of gainful employment – possibly the most valued thing in contemporary society. The stigma and travel restrictions associated with a criminal conviction are also something to consider in this light.
At the same time, alcohol consumption is also an ingrained part of our society, as is driving. So what we’re saying is that we’re at odds with ourselves – we view drinking as socially acceptable and driving as a way of life but prohibit the mixing of these two activities.
This situation leads to the natural occurrence of the average person falling afoul the Criminal Code. It is unlike theft or assault or murder or just about any other offence in the Criminal Code in that respect.
Now, sit in any remand court for a morning and you will invariably see that non-Impaired crimes are often committed by people who are already marginalized by society and who already exist in an impecunious state; they can’t afford high-caliber legal representation.
So, the question then becomes, what happens when you have a curious potential intersection of 1) a crime that a normal person can easily run afoul of; 2) a penalty that can have life altering consequences for a normal person; and, 3) a normal person who is capable of retaining high-caliber legal representation?
And the answer to that question is, you have a seemingly simple criminal code section that will have the snot litigated out of it because the average Joe or Jill will do anything to preserve their way of life.
Has the complexity of an Impaired trial increased? Certainly.
Is this the sole fault of the Criminal Justice system? No.
Is this the natural consequence of threatening people’s livelihoods? Yes.
I wholly support the idea of curbing Impaired driving and have not driven in such a condition since I was a boneheaded teenager who should have behaved better but didn’t. At the same time, if you back an animal (including people) into a perceived corner, it will fight as hard as it can to get out. It’s really as simple as that.
An anecdotal example of this would be a matter which I had the (mis)fortune to observe in person…
A woman was brought in on a Drive While Prohibited charge. A couple of years prior, she was dinged with an Impaired conviction. She lost her license and was fined. The loss of her license lead to the loss of her job as she commuted to work and was unable to find efficient alternative means of transportation. The loss of her job resulted in her defaulting on her mortgage. She ultimately found employment closer to home and was able to rent a place to live. However, the change in her lifestyle had a severe impact on her mental health. On a particular day, she decided to end her life. Fortunately for her, en route to the location at which she planned on ending her life, she was stopped by police and dinged with the aforementioned crime. Thankfully, the good work of the police saved this woman’s life. At the time she appeared in court, the woman was getting professional help and was doing rather well. To boot, the Crown was going to seriously look at staying charges given the circumstances. The sad counterpoint to all of this is that this woman was perfectly willing to end her life over her perception of the impact an Impaired conviction had on her lifestyle.
I am sure you will enlighten us on your interpretation of the impaired issue as you feel you have the answer. I for one am all aquiver in anticipation.
As far as my comments on Leask, (sic) in some circles that statement is quite a slam (opposite of an endearment), my apologies for not explaining that one better.
“Parliament is supreme and has the ability to create statute. That’s a given and limited only by the Constitution Act and Charter. If the courts have improperly applied the purposive approach to interpreting a given statute, it is the job of the legislative body to correct this error – consider it a dialogue between two branches of the government”
Nice sentiment, however, the courts have been interpreting the statutes as they see fit and now even the government asks the SCC for opinions before forging ahead with an agenda. Surely you have heard of judicial activism? It is only the opinion of the great unwashed that think the interpretation is as you say “improperly applied the purposive approach to interpreting a given statute…”
When was the last time major corrective surgery was applied by the government? For example, instead of fixing the conspiracy part of the CCC, you have the criminal organization offence birthed. Until sullied by case law the conspiracy prosecutions were successful in their aim to topple the upper echelons of crime.
My apologies for misinterpreting your comment on the use of the English language. I thought you were bothered, not thinking you were actually being condescending.
I don’t think that you’ve ever quite hit the nail on the head in specific regard to Over .08/Impaired complexity issues, an example you use often. Aside from blaming the judges and the lawyers, have you ever asked yourself why this particular offence has been so litigated?
I’m not sure why you refer to Mr. Justice Leask as “Judge Leask” nor why you note “(as he was then)” as Mr. Justice Leask still sits on the bench and was never, to my knowledge, a Provincial Court Judge nor has he been appointed to any other court.
Parliament is supreme and has the ability to create statute. That’s a given and limited only by the Constitution Act and Charter. If the courts have improperly applied the purposive approach to interpreting a given statute, it is the job of the legislative body to correct this error – consider it a dialogue between two branches of the government.
Speaking of assumptions, you have assumed that I am “put off” by $10 words. I am not put off by them at all. I rarely find the need to use them as they are often unnecessary and reek of pompousness. Education certainly does have its pitfalls.
Finally, I agree that a large number of police officers persevere in the face of the complexity of the law. My original point, and I stand by it is this: If you can’t handle the complexity, get out of the job. It’s no different than any profession in that respect, e.g., what good is a truck driver who can’t understand the rules of the road or an accountant who cannot master arithmetic or an engineer who is unable to do calculus?
Your vitriol aside, there are a number of factors involved in the evolution of the legal system to its present sorry state. I have expounded on them at length before and I am not going to reiterate them again just for your edification.
You will find that by and large police officers will forge through the pap and secure convictions, as that is their lot. The fact that doing so is becoming unnecessarily obtuse is one of my issues.
You conclude that I am an RCMP officer. It, like a lot of your observations are not well founded. Perhaps it is the comprehension factor that you need assistance with. I apologize if you are put off by the use of your termed “$10 words”, however, education has its pitfalls.
As far as parliament being “supreme and all”, examine the contrails of the conditional sentence debacle, as one tiny example. Try a read of the case failures of the new organized crime legislation. You will find that the police were not the cause of the failures of these multi million dollar expenditures. I would recommend Judge Leask’s, (as he was then), findings followed by the rebuke of his conclusions by the BCCA.
If you are such a fan of Kafka and his dystopian novel the Castle, substitute “taxpayer” for K and “the Courts” for the Castle. Max would be proud, as it would add a 3rd ending for him to choose from.
Have you ever stopped to think about WHY offences like Over .08/Impaired and offences contrary to the CDSA have evolved as they have in the court system?
There’s a very good explanation as to why those two types of offences have become so complicated and it’s not just the big, bad court system with the big, bad lawyers and big, bad judges. But you’re a smart lad with all the answers… I’ll let you think about that one.
And, as for the heat in the kitchen… I don’t care if you think that getting a conviction is too complicated or not… if you or any other Mountie can’t handle the reality of it, get out of the way and make space for somebody who can; maybe retire and read a little Kafka (I recommend “The Castle”). Or find a way to give effect to the change that you seek… you know, statute can override precedent… Parliament is supreme and all…
If you take a look at the impaired driving legislation and compare that with the restrictive case law that now surrounds the offense, the original intent is long lost. It is by no means a lone example of the lunacy spewed by the courts.
There will hopefully come a reckoning where the balance will shift back to some form of sanity. Do you not think that there is a limit to the extent that officers will be expected to go in order to convict an offender? Heat in the kitchen? I take it from your comment that you do not care how many steps, hoops, complications are planted in the way of the police, it is your opinion that they should just deal with it. In that we can agree they have to do what is directed. However, a lot of the pap is defense driven fluff to get offenders off. The courts allow this and you should be concerned.
According to a BC study, drug trafficking procedures have increased from 9 steps to now having 65 steps from inception to presentation in court. Impaired driving from 1 hour to 5 hours. Are you concerned that at roadblocks the police invariably hand out suspensions rather than operate for only a couple of hours until everybody is tied up with an impaired?
The acceptance of new and novel “defenses” for various criminal acts by the courts is most disconcerting.
The municipalities and other levels of government rely on officers per population ratios rather than time/man hour driven criteria to staff their forces. Any officer will tell you that investigative time is almost non existent except in specialized areas where dedicated resources can take years of investigation, months of disclosure and untold court time to resolve major cases. This does not even account for the exponential increase in administrative time foisted upon officers in every circumstance.
As a taxpayer I object to the waste, duplication, and inanity, that is increasingly infecting the legal system. Along with the increasingly mild rebukes handed out, it is a shame affecting us all.
I actually prefer to read the case as reported itself, as compared to a newsman’s interpretation of the decision.
Perhaps I did misunderstand you, I think it was the “Unbelievable” at the end that left me with the notion that you thought a case getting tossed due to the RCMP fabricating evidence was, in fact, “Unbelievable.” You’re usually far more clear in your writing, even if you like to use $10 words to set yourself above the masses.
On the topic of complicated case law – I think the saying goes, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.” And I’m not directing this at you in particular; I am saying that if there’s a copper out there who can’t wrap his head around the requirements imposed on him by the common law, then quit or, I suppose, build a career on “no-arrest seizures” and never show your face in a court room.
Who follows the laws today?
Politicians or Public Workers, what about Teachers or Corporation Bosses and finally Police and Judges where do they fit in this?
Lets face it, they are just written to control the General Public – I think my vote goes to the GP as law abiding citizens because it seems the laws are written for them and them only, there’s no way it applies to any leadership in this country or people that has the ability to through lots of money at the issue and set it up to their advantage.
If it goes bad, just do an under the table settlement so there is no court precedent and next time it’s a new battle.
I know you like numbers and figures so this one should be good and to your advantage.
About Justice;
1- If a poor man is driving 150 km/h in a 100 km/h speed limit in Ontario and he gets a 10,000 fine for speeding is this hurtful, yes
2- If a rich man is being driven to the airport by a limo and he is speeding does he get even stopped and if he does, is this 10,000 dollar fine hurtful to him, no probably just a write off and the other guy looses the points.
3- What about if a Government Official or a police officer when he is stopped and flashes his credentials or badge does he get this same treatment? No he does not.
So where is the justice in all of this?
I will assume that you do not comprehend my post by the comment you made. FACT: some case law and procedures dictated thereby are inane and or difficult. FACT: It does not matter whether they are or not, the police have to follow them.
Therefore my response to the article: “There is no wriggle room for police interpretation of procedures if the court orders them.” and “…they still have to be followed in order to have successful prosecutions.” In other words they have to abide by the law as set down. In other words they have to follow the law. In other words there is no excuse for not following the law.
Do you comprehend my post at this juncture?
Would you like me to reiterate some of the inane and ridiculous case law that has been issued from the courts, or do you not read the news??
Anything else I can clarify for you?
I will assume that you do not comprehend my post by the comment you made. FACT: some case law and procedures dictated thereby are inane and or difficult. FACT: It does not matter whether they are or not, the police have to follow them.
Therefore my response to the article: “There is no wriggle room for police interpretation of procedures if the court orders them.” In other words they have to abide by the law as set down. In other words they have to follow the law. In other words there is no excuse for not following the law.
Do you comprehend my post at this juncture?
Would you like me to reiterate some of the inane and ridiculous case law that has been issued from the courts, or do you not read the news??
Anything else I can clarify for you?
Come now Deepthroat… the reference to “difficulty or inanity of case law and procedures” is such a red herring, I’m quite surprised you would stoop so low.
The Order required something, the Mounties failed to comply with that Order and, to make it all worse, fabricated evidence to indicate that they had been complying with the Order.
It’s no different then a bail order saying, for example, that the accused is not to possess a cell phone. Get busted with a cell phone, guess what, you’re in breach of the order and you get tagged for it.
No matter the difficulty or inanity of case law and procedures, they still have to be followed in order to have successful prosecutions. There is no wriggle room for police interpretation of procedures if the court orders them. Unbelievable.
It looks like they are scared to do their jobs when it comes to the big fish.
No one can mess up this much and not draw attention to the issue of national security.