I don't think there has been any suggestion of impropriety on the side of the crown prosecutors?
That statement is somewhat bizarre and raises more questions for me...maybe some of our esteemed lawyers can chime in, but it seems like an oddly definitive judgment based on an investigation that has so many fundamental question marks...
OTOH maybe that's just how the crown is used to operating? ie. they make decisions based on a somewhat narrow view of the evidence presented by law enforcement? I'm not sure that's the most fair assessment/summary, but I'm just trying to get into their heads a bit...maybe the lawyer-speak just feels odd compared to more typical PR language, but it also feels like doth protest too much.
Making such a definitive statement at this point just seems odd, and if anything contrary to the notion of independence.
|