This result is hardly surprising.
Regardless of what happened, and who behaved rightly or wrongly, the conduct alleged really doesn’t fit within the scope of the charge. (It would have been easier politically for the Crown to proceed and lose -- it took some political backbone to withdraw).
That said, the complainant’s suggestion he will seek judicial review is likely to lead nowhere – the Crown has an absolute right to proceed or not and there isn’t any scope to review that discretion.
Crown drops charge against OPP's Julian Fantino
CTV.ca News Staff
The Crown has withdrawn a criminal charge against OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino after deciding that it had no reasonable prospect of conviction.
Fantino had been accused of trying to influence municipal officials in Caledonia, Ont., by allegedly sending an e-mail counseling the mayor and councillors not to attend rallies led by activist Gary McHale.
…
McHale is an activist who has publicly opposed the aboriginal land occupation in the Caledonia area that began nearly four years ago.
He first attempted to bring a charge against Fantino last year, but a justice of the peace who heard his complaint refused to issue a summons or warrant against the commissioner.
However, Superior Court Justice David Crane reviewed the case and later ordered the justice of the peace to issue such an order.
Following the Crown's decision to drop the charge, McHale vowed to press his case forward with the Superior Court.
…
"It means I have to file another judicial review. There's no doubt in my mind the Superior Court will overturn what the (justice of the peace) just did today."
2 comments:
Good ole boy Fantino - gets away scott free again. Gah!
Posted by Gary McHale
Crown Violates the Fundamentals of Justice
Feb. 3, 2010
Today in a Cayuga Courthouse Crown Attorney Milan Rupic read from a prepared text in which it stated the following:
However, on a review of the record, I am satisfied that Commissioner Fantino's remark (that he would send a bill to Haldimand County if police officers were injured) does not and cannot constitute an offense under section 123... what constitutes a "threat" for the purposes of the criminal law is not identical with the meaning of the word in the vernacular.
The problem is that the Attorney General already conceded that Mr. Fantino's email constitutes a "threat" as understood by the criminal law when the case was before Superior Court Judge Crane on Nov. 5, 2009. The issue raised by the Attorney General was that the "threat" was not issued against someone who was acting in the official capacity as a municipal official.
It was Mr. Fantino's lawyer on Nov. 5, 2009 who argued the email did not constitute a "threat" as understood by the Criminal Code. The Crown disagreed with Mr. Fantino's lawyer.
The Attorney General CANNOT have two kicks at the can. It is against the fundamentals of justice for the Attorney General to concede to a definition of a "threat" then disagree with that in another court room on the same case.
On Dec. 31, 2009 Judge Crane ordered Mr. Fantino to face a criminal charge for sending a threatening email. Justice Brown, Judge Crane and the Attorney General were all in agreement that the email constituted a "threat" under the Criminal Code. The Crown cannot now argue the opposite view.
Furthermore, Crown Lawyers do NOT determine what constitutes a criminal offense - Judges make that determination. The Crown had no authority to disrespect the Court by outright disregarding both Justice Brown's and Judge Crane's stated view that the email constituted a "threat" as understood by the Criminal Code.
A Judicial Review will be filed and the Crown will be overruled and the charge will be re-instated. Clearly the Attorney General is playing politics with this case.
Gary McHale
Executive Director of CANACE.ca
Canadian Advocates for Charter Equality
Post a Comment