shockedcanadian
Diamond Member
- Aug 6, 2012
- 43,702
- 42,742
- 3,605
There is a reason that multiple administrations in the U.S do not trust Canada and it has impacted trade. Even the Biden administration proved that it didn't trust Canada much regardless of how some people try to frame the relationship.
The issue of guilt of the officer isn't my concern per se, it is more the lack of transparency and need for a court to explain itself. A man dies in police custody and the courts just rule however they please and never explain? That's not how free societies operate.
The delay in explaining ones decisions and then retiring, it's how a Police State would operate. In fact, if one objectively observed the activities going on in Canada they would align them precisely with a Police State, there is no room between. Judge makes a decision, doesn't explain it, has a record of delaying explanations in the past, just retires without EVER explaining.
Americans used to call these "Red Star Show Trials" when the Russians engaged in them.
You have a nation of fair justice or you don't. If Trumps DOJ investigated the weaponization against him when he was running, do you think they would find it was on the level or would they find some nefarious abuses going on similar to how the Canadian or Soviet system operates?
Canada is NOT your ally, I assure you.
www.thestar.com
Last year, Justice Hugh O’Connell acquitted a police officer of criminal responsibility for a man who died in a jail cell.
“This case is emotional; it’s emotional primarily because a gentleman who had, at the very least, mental health reasons, issues, was homeless and appeared to be a drug user ... passed away in police custody,” O’Connell said at the time, providing little rationale for his decision.
He promised to provide full written reasons for acquitting David Swaine at a later date.
But he retired before releasing them.
The circumstances surrounding O’Connell’s abrupt departure from the bench are now under a microscope as part of the prosecution’s appeal on the sole ground that the judge did not sufficiently explain his reasons for finding Swaine not guilty.
Swaine’s appeal lawyers have taken the unusual step of seeking to cross-examine Sam Walker, one of the prosecutors in the case, along with a key adviser in the Office of the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Ontario about their communications related to O’Connell’s missing reasons. Their discussions were a form of back-channel interference that forced the judge’s retirement and ultimately caused the non-delivery of his written reasons, the defence alleges.
“We’re defending the presumption of innocence,” defence lawyer Alan Gold told a three-judge panel at the Ontario Court of Appeal on June 20th. “This man, Mr. Swaine, was acquitted, the Crown is trying to take away his acquittal.”
In a court filing, prosecutors involved in the appeal say “the only cause of the trial judge’s inability to produce reasons was a medical issue, not the conduct of Crown counsel.” They are asking to explore whether there were “other issues with the judge.”
The case is rife with “extremely sensitive matters that go to the heart of judicial independence, as well as administrative, adjudicative and solicitor-client privileges,” the appellate court panel wrote in its latest ruling, released late Friday afternoon.
Federally appointed judges can serve until a mandatory retirement age of 75. With the immense prestige of the job, and a salary of more than $300,000, it is unusual for any judge to suddenly step down. Friday’s decision indicates O’Connell resigned last September after coming afflicted “with a permanent infirmity” disabling him from executing his judicial duties.
The issue of guilt of the officer isn't my concern per se, it is more the lack of transparency and need for a court to explain itself. A man dies in police custody and the courts just rule however they please and never explain? That's not how free societies operate.
The delay in explaining ones decisions and then retiring, it's how a Police State would operate. In fact, if one objectively observed the activities going on in Canada they would align them precisely with a Police State, there is no room between. Judge makes a decision, doesn't explain it, has a record of delaying explanations in the past, just retires without EVER explaining.
Americans used to call these "Red Star Show Trials" when the Russians engaged in them.
You have a nation of fair justice or you don't. If Trumps DOJ investigated the weaponization against him when he was running, do you think they would find it was on the level or would they find some nefarious abuses going on similar to how the Canadian or Soviet system operates?
Canada is NOT your ally, I assure you.
This judge acquitted a GTA cop in a jailhouse death. Then he retired without explaining why
The circumstances around Justice Hugh O’Connell’s abrupt departure from the bench are now under a microscope.
www.thestar.com
Last year, Justice Hugh O’Connell acquitted a police officer of criminal responsibility for a man who died in a jail cell.
“This case is emotional; it’s emotional primarily because a gentleman who had, at the very least, mental health reasons, issues, was homeless and appeared to be a drug user ... passed away in police custody,” O’Connell said at the time, providing little rationale for his decision.
He promised to provide full written reasons for acquitting David Swaine at a later date.
But he retired before releasing them.
The circumstances surrounding O’Connell’s abrupt departure from the bench are now under a microscope as part of the prosecution’s appeal on the sole ground that the judge did not sufficiently explain his reasons for finding Swaine not guilty.
Swaine’s appeal lawyers have taken the unusual step of seeking to cross-examine Sam Walker, one of the prosecutors in the case, along with a key adviser in the Office of the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Ontario about their communications related to O’Connell’s missing reasons. Their discussions were a form of back-channel interference that forced the judge’s retirement and ultimately caused the non-delivery of his written reasons, the defence alleges.
“We’re defending the presumption of innocence,” defence lawyer Alan Gold told a three-judge panel at the Ontario Court of Appeal on June 20th. “This man, Mr. Swaine, was acquitted, the Crown is trying to take away his acquittal.”
In a court filing, prosecutors involved in the appeal say “the only cause of the trial judge’s inability to produce reasons was a medical issue, not the conduct of Crown counsel.” They are asking to explore whether there were “other issues with the judge.”
The case is rife with “extremely sensitive matters that go to the heart of judicial independence, as well as administrative, adjudicative and solicitor-client privileges,” the appellate court panel wrote in its latest ruling, released late Friday afternoon.
Federally appointed judges can serve until a mandatory retirement age of 75. With the immense prestige of the job, and a salary of more than $300,000, it is unusual for any judge to suddenly step down. Friday’s decision indicates O’Connell resigned last September after coming afflicted “with a permanent infirmity” disabling him from executing his judicial duties.
Last edited:
