Quote:
Originally Posted by belsarius
IANAL but I believe there can be quite a large gap between the investigation returning a "reasonable grounds to believe the officer committed a criminal offense" and having the actual evidence required to reasonably obtain a criminal conviction.
From what we can see, this seems pretty egregious, but if the hard evidence isn't there to win the case then it would just be wasted resources in an already overwhelmed legal system.
But even though a criminal conviction may not be possible, it seems like this was a serious offense and should have warranted more than a temporary demotion under the Police Act. I want the people hired to uphold the laws to be held to a much higher standard under their own act without it requiring to be "criminal".
|
I cant find it at the moment but there was a thread on twitter highlighting at least 6 instances of ASIRT finding fault with police actions and the Crown choosing not to prosecute. And of the former head of ASIRT resigning and why.