5 ms·

It is indeed shocking that this poor man was arrested, charged, and taken through a full prosecution despite the obviously flawed evidence. The crown prosecutor

by ttul 4y ago

It is indeed shocking that this poor man was arrested, charged, and taken through a full prosecution despite the obviously flawed evidence. The crown prosecutor erred so greatly in taking this case on that it strains belief. In Canada, the crown turns down all sorts of cases if they aren’t highly confident they can win. This one? Prosecutors are appointed, not elected. They have nothing to gain from such legal tourism and whomever brought this case forward will have a black mark on their credentials for some time.

EntrePrescott 4y ago
leaving aside the show of incompetence of that specific "crown prosecutor", what I find even far more shocking is that in 2023 there still is such a thing as a "crown prosecutor". I'd say it's high time to gain full independence and throw the English "crown" out of Canada.
- JeremyBanks 4y ago
  [dead]
- zemnmez 4y ago
  “the crown” is an idea stemming from english constitutional law representing “the state”, i.e. the legal entity constituting the country. It doesn’t have a lot to do with the physical monarch except in metaphor. It looks like, based on some Googling, that Jamaica, which is a republic (canada is not) still uses the term “crown” in this sense: https://www.mof.gov.jm/careers/crown-counsel-mlss-legal-services-unit/ https://www.mof.gov.jm/careers/crown-counsel-mlss-legal-serv...
  - zemnmez 4y ago
    wanted to correct this one: I confused Barbados with Jamaica here. Barbados is a republic. I am sure its laws still use the term "the crown", but it looks like it uses the term "Public Prosecutor" instead of "Crown Prosecutor".
  - mod50ack 4y ago
    Jamaica, like Canada, is not a republic.
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    "English constitutional law" is any English law that pertains to something you consider to be "constitution". The term "Crown" used to mean the prosecution in criminal cases derives from the actions of Henry I and particularly Henry II, in despatching teams of royal justices around the country, to hear cases in the provinces. Previously, such cases were heard mainly in baronial courts. In that sense, these kings made the English law more uniform, and more accessible. One of the customary requirements of kings was that they should dispense justice. One of the classes of court in the UK is Crown Courts, which hear criminal cases in front of juries (and appeals from magistrates courts). They are not controlled by The Crown, and the judges are not appointed by The Crown. In theory, the government here governs by the grace of The Crown; everything is by grace of The Crown. In practice, it's nonsense.
peeters 4y ago
I don't know who exactly made the decision to let the case get this far, but it's worth noting the judge explicitly credits crown counsel with suggesting an acquittal: > [7] After Mr. Epstein testified in chief, in a tremendous display of professionalism and objectivity, Crown counsel declined to cross-examine him since, in her view, it was not in the public interest to do so. Instead, she humbly invited the Court to enter an acquittal. Having heard the evidence, I can unreservedly confirm that she made the right call. Counsel’s integrity was commendable. One thing that I found in reading the judgement was that French/English tensions came into play (the accused was Anglophone, the complainant had taken exception to him speaking English) which is a political hot topic in Quebec right now. It's possible there were some political motivations in play.

by ttul 4y ago

EntrePrescott 4y ago

leaving aside the show of incompetence of that specific "crown prosecutor", what I find even far more shocking is that in 2023 there still is such a thing as a "crown prosecutor". I'd say it's high time to gain full independence and throw the English "crown" out of Canada.

JeremyBanks 4y ago
[dead]
zemnmez 4y ago
“the crown” is an idea stemming from english constitutional law representing “the state”, i.e. the legal entity constituting the country. It doesn’t have a lot to do with the physical monarch except in metaphor. It looks like, based on some Googling, that Jamaica, which is a republic (canada is not) still uses the term “crown” in this sense: https://www.mof.gov.jm/careers/crown-counsel-mlss-legal-services-unit/ https://www.mof.gov.jm/careers/crown-counsel-mlss-legal-serv...
- zemnmez 4y ago
  wanted to correct this one: I confused Barbados with Jamaica here. Barbados is a republic. I am sure its laws still use the term "the crown", but it looks like it uses the term "Public Prosecutor" instead of "Crown Prosecutor".
- mod50ack 4y ago
  Jamaica, like Canada, is not a republic.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  "English constitutional law" is any English law that pertains to something you consider to be "constitution". The term "Crown" used to mean the prosecution in criminal cases derives from the actions of Henry I and particularly Henry II, in despatching teams of royal justices around the country, to hear cases in the provinces. Previously, such cases were heard mainly in baronial courts. In that sense, these kings made the English law more uniform, and more accessible. One of the customary requirements of kings was that they should dispense justice. One of the classes of court in the UK is Crown Courts, which hear criminal cases in front of juries (and appeals from magistrates courts). They are not controlled by The Crown, and the judges are not appointed by The Crown. In theory, the government here governs by the grace of The Crown; everything is by grace of The Crown. In practice, it's nonsense.

peeters 4y ago

I don't know who exactly made the decision to let the case get this far, but it's worth noting the judge explicitly credits crown counsel with suggesting an acquittal: > [7] After Mr. Epstein testified in chief, in a tremendous display of professionalism and objectivity, Crown counsel declined to cross-examine him since, in her view, it was not in the public interest to do so. Instead, she humbly invited the Court to enter an acquittal. Having heard the evidence, I can unreservedly confirm that she made the right call. Counsel’s integrity was commendable. One thing that I found in reading the judgement was that French/English tensions came into play (the accused was Anglophone, the complainant had taken exception to him speaking English) which is a political hot topic in Quebec right now. It's possible there were some political motivations in play.