[Newsbot]

Title: Crown had to withdraw drug, driving charges against ex-MP Jaffer
Category: Law & Order
Posted By: Hyack
Date: 2010-03-10 16:56:06
Canadian

[martin14]

hmm, special deal for a special guy.

[gonavy47]

He'll be back. Mark my words.

[EyeBrock]

martin14 martin14:

hmm, special deal for a special guy.

Martin, go to any court in Canada and you will see the same sorry deals being made every day for impaired drivers of all political persuasions.

Our 'justice' system is a joke and I have seen this shit so many times before. Courts are reluctant to convict impaired drivers and will toss out the charges for any miniscule reason.

This isn't 'special' treatment, this is how Canadian courts deal with the scourge of impaired drivers.

They don't care what you, MADD Canada or the Tories think, the judges and crown attorney's know better than you.
That's why my jurisdiction has about a 30% conviction rate on impaired drivers. As in 70% get off with a reduced bullshit charge like 'careless', or get off completely scot free.

Jaffer's case is just the reality exposed.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Ok fine Eyebrock, I can certainly agree with what you say. But how many impaired drivers that got off in your jurisdiction, ALSO got off possession of controlled substance charges at the same time? The dude had coke on him and they dropped those charges too?
I have VERY serious doubts that your "average" drunk driver with cocaine in his/her possession would find the possession charge dismissed.

[EyeBrock]

PA9.

I haven't read the transcript of the trial but;

I would think that defence put forward a 10b (charter) challenge for some bullshit reason and that all the evidence gained on arrest, such as poss. narcotic etc was tossed, hence no possession charge.

The courts usually give a discharge (as in no conviction) for simple possession of a narcotic as the courts don't believe drug offences merit criminal charges.

They don't care what parliament or you think, judges and other lawyers know better.

Pop into a court sometime and all will be revealed.

[andyt]

I don't care about the drug charge, since I think drugs should be legalized anyway. But it just shows the hypocrisy of the Reformacons, passing laws to put the bad drug mens in jail, then partying on themselves. I wonder of Kenney, say, likes to smoke pole the way his Republicon anti-gay confreres all seem to do as well?

But the drunk driving. That should be a slam dunk. Surely by now the cops have the procedure for breathalizing somebody down so it can withstand a charger challenge?

[EyeBrock]

I don't know how you can blame the Tories for Jaffer's criminal activity? That's a very loose connection.

This guy was already out of the political movers and shakers club well prior to this. He made a fatal flaw when the whole AM radio interview thing happened. After that he was political toast.

On drunk driving being a 'slam dunk' you are very funny!

Like I said to PA9, pop along to your local court house and see Canadian 'justice' in action.

Slam dunk is about as far away from reality as you can get on how the courts deal with impaired driving charges.

[andyt]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I don't know how you can blame the Tories for Jaffer's criminal activity? That's a very loose connection.

This guy was already out of the political movers and shakers club well prior to this. He made a fatal flaw when the whole AM radio interview thing happened. After that he was political toast.

On drunk driving being a 'slam dunk' you are very funny!

Like I said to PA9, pop along to your local court house and see Canadian 'justice' in action.

Slam dunk is about as far away from reality as you can get on how the courts deal with impaired driving charges.

Just having some fun bashing the reformacons - I can't get enough of that stuff.

But the DWI, my point was that the cops must have lots of practice a charging people for this crime. It's very common, not like conspiracy to commit an act not carried out (or whatever it was). You'd think with MADD breathing down their necks justice would fix whatever is the problem, and if not MADD would campaign about that.

[EyeBrock]

Andy, I'm not trying to flippant here but common sense on this is out of the window.

An impaired crown brief is very complicated to prepare. There are over 60 seperate forms to fill out.
Every single bit of police evidence is challenged beyond belief. The courts are willing to see the slightest thing as 'an element of doubt' and toss the charges.

This is a very simple offence to prove and convict in the UK, it's one of the most difficult to prove and convict in Canada.

Check out the Martins Criminal Code, Section 253 covers about 25 pages, the most of any codified offence. Check out case-law on impaireds. This offence has by far the most SCC and provincial case law on file of any criminal offence on the books.

Don't ask me why the courts and crowns turn a blind eye to impaired driving but they do. It was the same way with domestic violence up until 15 years ago, I guess society and the courts have a bit of catching up to do.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Andy, I'm not trying to flippant here but common sense on this is out of the window.

An impaired crown brief is very complicated to prepare. There are over 60 seperate forms to fill out.
Every single bit of police evidence is challenged beyond belief. The courts are willing to see the slightest thing as 'an element of doubt' and toss the charges.

This is a very simple offence to prove and convict in the UK, it's one of the most difficult to prove and convict in Canada.

Check out the Martins Criminal Code, Section 253 covers about 25 pages, the most of any codified offence. Check out case-law on impaireds. This offence has by far the most SCC and provincial case law on file of any criminal offence on the books.

Don't ask me why the courts and crowns turn a blind eye to impaired driving but they do. It was the same way with domestic violence up until 15 years ago, I guess society and the courts have a bit of catching up to do.

Yeah, I actually remember a case in Windsor many years ago where a woman came across the border with a handgun in her glovebox. Despite the fact that both bringing the handgun across, and that handguns are a restricted weapon should have made that case slam dunk, the case was dismissed when it was discovered the police had entered the wrong calibre of the handgun. I don't so much blame the police in that case as I do a ridiculously lax justice system that will let somoene off because of some niggling technicality that has NO bearing on the crime commited.

[Freakinoldguy]

Even though Jaffer appears to be a drunken drug addled asswipe, who has no concern for the law or the consequences of breaking it, I don't hold him totally responsible for this abomination of justice.

This shinning example of justice served has been brought to us by years and years of the judicial system misinterpreting the intent of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and then, allowing Judges to do pretty much as they want because they have a law degree.

Until this country puts a leash on all lawyers, this same scenario is going to crop up time and time again.

[OldChum]

The Federal Minister could appeal it