Quote:
Originally Posted by Daradon
I know it's different than the States and I know the Crown/law enforcement agencies have the say in large crimes, but there's got to be some qualifier. I've been in two situations and known and read about many more where the decision has come to the person who has been 'wronged'.
Maybe one of the lawyers on board can clarify?
IE, I know major crimes are often a crown issue, because they are deemed to be in the public interest, or crime against society, but this isn't always the case.
|
Once charges have been laid by police (who may or may not ask for advice from the Crown Attorney's office before doing so), the discretion to proceed or how to proceed lies entirely in the hands of the Crown. The Crown considers two factors when deciding whether to prosecute: (1) whether prosecution is in the public interest; and (2) whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction.
Certainly, a recanting or uncooperative witness is an important consideration with respect to the likeliness of a conviction. However, it would be unusual for the Crown to withdraw charges due to a recanting witness this early in process. In my experience, the Crown is more likely to set trial dates and give the recanting witness time to get his or her story straight until the trial date arrives.
I still think that this matter was likely resolved by way of diversion. Although I'm still a little surprised by that too.