Released on
October 21, 2015 at 23:00 EDT
Tag #: 683
Private
Prosecutions: A legal Right, or an Untouchable Mirage?
Sudbury court
decision challenged. Appeal heard in Toronto October 28
Civil action against Sudbury Police Services and Const.
Labreche ready to file
Sudbury Police member assaulting private citizen
Section
507.1 of the Criminal Code is the starting point for a citizen to
exercise rights to a private prosecution.
According to
sources available to WikiLeaks Sudbury social justice groups
representing legal team planning to file an appeal with the Ontario
Court of Appeal regarding the decision of the Sudbury Court to deny
the right of a private prosecution. Unfortunately, the Crown
Attorney’s office waited until 30 days had passed before
withdrawing the case.
A motion expect to
hear in Toronto on October 28th to request an extension of time
for filing the appeal.
Even if the appeal
is not successful, or is not heard, then still have a civil law suit
which covers all of the same issues.
Tanner
Currie had charged a member of the Greater Sudbury police for
smashing his head into a glass window while his hand were behind his
back. The Crown Attorney's office neglected to lay any charges for
the incident, so the Applicant initiated the charges himself, as a
private citizen.
As
a result of the Applicant's efforts, on January 26, 2015 Constable
Labreche of the Greater Sudbury police was charged with Assault.
Immediately following the Court's decision, the Attorney General
intervened in the charge and took over the prosecution
The
Applicant objected to the government taking control of the
prosecution, which the Applicant had started privately on his own. On
June 26, 2015, the Sudbury Court heard and Application regarding the
rights of a citizen to privately prosecute charges instead of the Crown
Attorney's office. Unfortunately, the Sudbury Court ruled that the
Attorney General was allowed to intervene in the prosecution, and
therefore the Applicant had no right to prosecute the police officer
privately. A copy of the Court's decision is provided here.
This
case joins the growing collection of precedent cases which have all
lost to the Attorney General regarding the issue of private
prosecutions. A list of some of the other notable cases are
provided below:
There
is yet to surface a reported decision in Canada in which a citizen
was allowed by the Court to privately prosecute. The Attorney
General has always been allowed to intervene and take over the
prosecution.
Section
507.1 of the Criminal Code is the starting point for a citizen to
exercise rights to a private prosecution.
The
issue of private prosecutions will definitely come before the Courts
again for two reasons. First, as Canadian citizens become
increasingly sophisticated, they become more and more knowledgeable
of legal rights. And second, the number of self-represented
litigants is constantly growing. This is an important
trend because self-represented litigants are more open-minded
to unconventional procedures, such as private prosecutions.
The
case of Currie v Attorney General Office
(will likely be referenced by future courts, lawyers, and
self-represented litigants on the issue of private prosecutions. For
this reason, it is regrettable that the following facts on record
were not included in the Sudbury judgment.
Major
issues Related to Sudbury Assault case
(a)
The
Crown Attorney who intervened in the case and took over the
prosecution of the police officer is the same Crown Attorney that
cross-examined the Applicant at the pre-charge hearing, attempting
to stop the charges from being laid.
(b)
This
same Crown Attorney also made submissions to the Court at the
pre-charge hearing regarding the rights of police officers to use
force.
(c)
After
intervening in the Applicant's case, the Crown Attorney did not
contact the Applicant at all to discuss the prosecution.
(d)
After
intervening in the Applicant's case, the Crown Attorney did not seek
a weapons prohibition against the police officer who was charged
with assault. Crown policy suggests that a weapons prohibition
should be mandatory for violent offences; however, in this case the
accused officer remained on duty, armed with weapons.
(e)
At
the time of intervening in the prosecution, the Crown Attorney did
not provide any grounds for intervening on the record. This means
that the Crown Attorney was allowed to take over the
prosecution, without even providing a reason to the Court. The
Applicant's factum argued that the Crown Attorney should only
intervene when "necessary" according to Section 11(d) of
the Crown Attorney's Act.
The
Attorney General's Office and the Crown Attorney fought very hard to
take over control of the prosecution of this police officer charged
with assault. Since prosecutor discharged Constable
Labreche from all charges, It
is now clear reason behind it.
But
Justice will prevail.
Related
documents
|
