Figleaf Posted May 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 1, 2007 Michael? OK. I'm capable of reading and comprehending said words.... really! The law. Legal rulings, legal interpretations are all about the specific and legal defintion of words. As a layman you see what Hart wrote as an admission of guilt. The RCMP investigated and found that it wasn't. Wasn't even close enough to warrant charges. They had access to all of the relevant documents. You had access to an out of context quote in a newspaper article. Which one is more credible? Well, I can't help myself but follow this matter since it is of such importance to the integrity of our political system. (Though I am still ignoring M. Bluth elsewhere.) This need not be a question of which is more 'credible' between the RCMP and us average forum denizens. The point is that the RCMP (or any prosecutors involved) should be able and willing to tender a reasonable explanation for how they have arrived at the (HIGHLY COUNTER-INTUITIVE) conclusion that an admission of the kind Hart made is not within the seemingly plain language of the Criminal Code. On the other hand, if you do choose to characterize it as a question of 'credibility', then the assumption that the RCMP is more credible(troubled as they have been revealed lately to be, and led by a person who is a subject of the very investigation in question), is dubious at best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Bluth Posted May 1, 2007 Report Share Posted May 1, 2007 Well, I can't help myself but follow this matter since it is of such importance to the integrity of our political system. (Though I am still ignoring M. Bluth elsewhere.) I really don't care if you ignore me or not. But having me on your ignore list in your signature then repeatedly replying to my posts is pretty sad. Make a choice already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted May 1, 2007 Report Share Posted May 1, 2007 Who decides if a charge is worthwhile, the police? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted May 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 1, 2007 Who decides if a charge is worthwhile, the police? If I have it right (someone correct me if I'm wrong) the police contact the crown and tell them they think there is a basis for charges. The crown then assesses the evidence gathered and decides whether to proceed. There is also another method available in some cases and that is to for a private individual go lay an 'information' before a justice of the peace, but I don't know much about it. I think I'll PM FTA Lawyer and ask him/her to join us in this discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted May 2, 2007 Report Share Posted May 2, 2007 I think I'll PM FTA Lawyer and ask him/her to join us in this discussion.Time for yet another Stock Day thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTA Lawyer Posted May 3, 2007 Report Share Posted May 3, 2007 Who decides if a charge is worthwhile, the police? If I have it right (someone correct me if I'm wrong) the police contact the crown and tell them they think there is a basis for charges. The crown then assesses the evidence gathered and decides whether to proceed. There is also another method available in some cases and that is to for a private individual go lay an 'information' before a justice of the peace, but I don't know much about it. I think I'll PM FTA Lawyer and ask him/her to join us in this discussion. At first instance, the police have a pretty wide discretion to decide whether to lay a charge or not. It's not necessarily proper (i.e. they have a sworn duty to uphold the law, so if they have reasonable and probable grounds to believe an offence has been committed, arguably, they should be obligated to lay a charge) but the practical reality is that it's up to the individual officer (as anyone who has been given a warning for speeding or fighting in a bar etc. would know). Once the police decide to charge, they do up all of the paperwork that compels the person to appear in court (or, if they are not prepared to release the accused, run a bail hearing in front of a JP or provincial court judge) and from that point on, the police have no formal authority to control the charges. The Crown then gets a file and typically has a screening unit review the allegations. The Crown makes its own assessment of whether the prosecution is (1) in the public interest; and (2) has a reasonable likelihood of conviction. If either of these criteria cannot be met, then the Crown will do a number of things like make a plea bargain, divert to alternative measures, enter a peace bond etc. or even just drop the charges outright. At this stage, the complainant / victim and the police have no ability to "drop" the charges...it is simply not their call. That being said, if a Crown is faced with a victim and a cop saying that they don't think the charges should proceed, there will be a pretty high motivation for the Crown to ditch the file. The above procedure applies probably 90% of the time. In some cases which are still relatively rare, the Crown becomes involved at the investigative stage and actually works directly with the police in developing the investigation and directing charges. These scenarios are mostly limited to organized crime / large drug production / child exploitation types of investigations. Hope this helps. FTA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted May 4, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 Thanks for your information. Based on that, it looks like the RCMP has declined to take the matter far enough for the crown to get into the act. While you're "here" (so to speak) would you have any conjectures on how the poice could conclude there is nothing to investigate when at least one participant in the matter (Hart) appears to acknowledge that a payment was pivotal to the course of events? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted May 5, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2007 Indeed can ANYone suggest what rational the RCMP could possibly apply to determine that Hart's statements in the fax did not implicate him and at least one other person in receipt/payment of a benefit to resign his seat? It seems to defy any sense at all, but maybe there's an interpretation that explains it that I just can't think of. It boggles the mind how the police could possibly see someone say his resignation was contingent on the negotiation and then not conclude that very likely his resignation was contingent on the negotiation. Seriously does this make sense to anyone? Did Stock simply issue orders to the RCMP not to follow up? What is going on here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.