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 think this is likely the case, but they also [are supposed to] weigh the public interest.
Link is a pdf:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour..._PokSVNOiSWuR7
Quote:
While it is not possible to prepare a precise list of situations in which consultation is required or even preferred, the following principles are applicable. Prosecutors are strongly encouraged to consult with supervisors and experienced colleagues in regard to the decision to prosecute significant or unusual cases. The determination of whether a case is significant requires judgment by the prosecutor involved. The following are examples of cases that would, in the norm, be regarded as significant:
1. A case involving a death;
2. Charges against public figures or persons involved in the administration of justice;
3. Criminal conduct involving gang or group activity;
4. Prosecutions which require an expanded or novel interpretation of the governing
legislation or which engage significant Charter issues; or
5. Cases which have attracted or will attract significant media attention, or which will likely
be of public interest when presented in court.
|
For personal and political reasons, LEO's targeted a legislator from the party that is historically (and presumptively into the future) sitting in opposition. It is a big step - but not actually a giant leap - to something like Putin's goons murdering Navalny. I'd rather not take even a baby step in that direction.
The court system being so horrifically underfunded that it couldn't possibly deal with this kind of case also does not fill me with warm and fuzzies. Even if a conviction is unlikely, a fulsome and transparent airing of the facts is definitely in the public interest.
Our premier has attempted (successfully?) to improperly influence the justice system. The previous two justice Ministers have both gone beyond the pale. It's just gross.