Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
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.
|
This helps, but I'm still fuzzy, as well as a lot of the posters obviously. What makes a police officer decide whether or not to press charges without the 'consent' of the one who is 'wronged'? Is it a huge grey judgement call, or is there is narrower set of rules. Because often, in Canada, an officer will ask, 'do you want to press charges?' with smaller crimes or non-obvious guilt.