Calgary courts reporter Kevin Martin has done an opinion column denouncing the Edmonton Police Service conduct trying to improperly get their way in the highly publicized manslaughter case from last fall:
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/martin-edm...110022546.html
But the story should be getting far more attention given the judge's assessment that the EPS and their counsel may have committed criminal obstruction of justice...particularly when we are reminded that Premier Smith publicly endorsed the EPS conduct and was described in media stories as being glad that they intervened in the case.
I think it is worth as many people as possible reading the full part of the decision where the trial judge addresses these issues in order to appreciate how seriously at risk the rule of law already is in this province [my emphasis added]:
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abkb/do...26abkb150.html
Quote:
[15] Mr. LaValley also raised as a collateral consequence the public notoriety of this case. Although there is always a greater public interest in cases involving the death of a child, interest in this case was greatly increased due to the actions of the Edmonton Police Service.
[16] Through its counsel, Megan Hankewiich, the Edmonton Police Service objected to the Crown’s exercise of its discretion to resolve this matter through a guilty plea to manslaughter. Edmonton Police Service has said that it is waiting to hear my decision on sentence before deciding whether or not to release “significant information” regarding this matter.
[17] I accepted Ms. Rattlesnake’s guilty plea to the charge of manslaughter. The Agreed Statement of Facts states that the blunt force head injury Nina suffered was the tipping point that led to her death. At the time she was suffering from multiple injuries as well as sepsis. All of this combined left Nina too weak to survive. The Agreed Statement of Facts does not indicate how the head injury was caused. It does not indicate who caused what injuries. On these facts, a plea to manslaughter was completely appropriate.
[18] I find the actions of the Edmonton Police Service to be reprehensible. The veiled threat that they may release more information about this matter if they are not happy about the sentence I impose comes dangerously close, and may actually cross the line, into an attempt to wilfully obstruct, pervert, or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding. I see little difference between the actions of Ms. Hankewich and those of former Alberta Justice Minister Kaycee Madu.
[19] I am at a loss as to how this action conforms with the motto that every uniformed officer wears on his or her shoulder, “Integrity, Courage, Community”. This action shows no integrity.
[20] In Canada, it has long been recognized that the police and the Crown Prosecution Service are separate entities. When that separation is not present, miscarriages of justice can happen.
[21] Although it is not usually my practice when giving a decision from the Bench, I am going to read a lengthy quote from R v Regan, 2002 SCC 12, starting at para 66 that explains the importance of the separation:
The need for a separation between police and Crown functions has been reiterated in reports inquiring into miscarriages of justice which have sent innocent men to jail in Canada. The Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall, Jr., Prosecution, vol. 1, Findings and Recommendations (1989) (“Marshall Report”) speaks of the Crown’s duty this way: “In addition to being accountable to the Attorney General for the performance of their duties, Crown prosecutors are accountable to the courts and the public. In that sense, the Crown prosecutor occupies what has sometimes been characterized as a quasi-judicial office, a unique position in our Anglo-Canadian legal tradition” (pp. 227-28). The Marshall Report emphasizes that this role must remain distinct from (while still cooperative with) that of the police (at p. 232):
We recognize that cooperative and effective consultation between the police and the Crown is also essential to the proper administration of justice. But under our system, the policing function -- that of investigation and law enforcement – is distinct from the prosecuting function. We believe the maintenance of a distinct line between these two functions is essential to the proper administration of justice.
[22] Continuing in Regan, Justice Lebel goes on to state at paragraph 87 that:
...The expectation is that both the police and the Crown will act according to their distinct roles in the process, investigating allegations of criminal behaviour, and assessing the public interest in prosecuting, respectively....
[23] I urge the senior members of the Edmonton Police Service to read Regan, and the Marshall report. Hopefully it will remind them of the role they play in the justice system and the reason a separation between the police and prosecution is required.
[24] I can assure everyone present today, and everyone involved in this case, and everyone who has an interest in this case, that I make my sentencing decision without any fear of the Edmonton Police Service’s possible actions. However, I do find that their actions go so far beyond what is acceptable conduct by the police service that it should be considered at least a somewhat mitigating factor on sentence.
|
We have reached a stage where a judge is having to assure the public that he did not allow himself to be intimidated by the threatened actions of the police (publicly supported by the Premier) when he made his decision.
It is not theoretical that we are on the verge of losing the independence of our judicial system - including both the ability of prosecutors to make decisions free from brazen political interference and the ability of judges to rely on the constitutional guarantees of their independence. People who understand what this means are absolutely getting more serious about looking for somewhere else to live. All Albertans should care far more about this than appears to be the case.