Fair enough - the executive summary was not available at the time I expressed doubts about the outcome.
Poor RickJay. He gave his life in the fight against ignorance.
But his sacrifice was not in vain. Now the rest of us know to keep a rabid sqiurrel in a pocket just in case.
If everything had happened the same way, except that when the cyclist fell of the car he only suffered minor injuries, Bryant would not have suffered in the same way. The long police investigation and the scandal occurred because the cyclist died. Without that, there’s some minor damage to the car, and a very short police investigation.
What did not happen is not relevant. Damages flow out of what happened. I think that you and I will have to disagree on intentional tort damages.
Ah, that makes sense then. I read some of the posts in preview mode, so in reverse order, which made it look like you had posted after the link to the PDF. I apologize. Edit: I was also quite dubious at the initial reports of the dismissed charges. The summary cleared things up quite well. It would have been a huge waste of resources to go for the conviction and would have probably made the deceased look even worse than he already does. He attacked a little old lady! shakes head How did that man end up so damaged?
The lead pipe is more intimidating, but if you use the rabid squirrel, it looks more like an accident.
“I don’t know, officer! I was walking by, minding my own business, and then this poor man started yelling ‘Help, squirrel!’”
See? Plausible deniability!
It is interesting to see how the law has diverged between England and Canada over time.
In England, it is killer bunnies. In Canada it is killer squirrels.
Giles, have a look at Borins’ decision in Bettel v. Yim, 20 O.R. (2d) 617:
The problem here that nobody seems to be addressing is that if Byant had a history of murdering bicycle messengers, that would be prejudicial evidence and not allowed as court room testimony. We seem to protect the accused in this case by pillorying the victim. It seems very weak that the prosecution and defense would work together to decide to drop the charges.
Or it might be that I’m just biased against anyone with political connections and an expense account, a publicist, and a highly paid legal team. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Leaving the specifics of this case aside, what’s wrong with any of this?
-
It’s the accused who has to be protected from the power of the state by having every available defense and by being shielded by various safeguards, and
-
It’s the job of the prosecution to seek justice, not to maximize their conviction rate. If the evidence demonstrated that Bryant was unlikely to be convicted, the prosecution was right to go that way.
Welcome back from the dead. Glad the squirrels did not get you.
A good question for our American friends: is it the job of the District Attorney to maximize its conviction rate? Or, is it the job of the DA to seek justice?
FTR, I agree with the reasoning of the Ontario Crown prosecutor.
I’m sure each and every one would claim the latter. But their real job is to get re-elected, and in some cases electoral politics have way more to do with decisions on who and what to prosecute than they should,
Ssh! He doesn’t know he’s dead. He’s all Bruce Willisy right now.
I don’t think you are wrong. I think that the average Joe would be going to trial. If I had been driving along and the same chain of events had happened, I would be heading to the courtroom to plead my case. I’m not even sure as much forensic investigation would have happened. I’d be charged on the basis of the witness accounts alone and stressed out because it could take months or years for the trial to finally get going. Edit: plus, for most victims, you’re not allowed to dredge up their past history because it’s prejudicial. In this case, I think the only argument for bringing up Sheppard’s altercations is that they were arguing the incident had started before Bryant got to the scene.
Also, my partner made a good point last night. She said: “Isn’t the saying ‘justice has to be seen to be seen’?” If Bryant’s actions were reasonable, a jury would have acquit. I think that would have more social value than just withdrawing the charges because you’re “pretty sure” of the outcome. You’d never do that in reverse. “Let’s just send him to prison for the rest of his life. There’s a 95% chance they’ll find him guilty and a trial is expensive.” So on the one hand I am satisfied by the reasons of the summary: I understand why they have chosen not to proceed. On the other hand, society might have been better served to see the entire process of “justice” unfold.
With similar fact evidence in Canada, the presumption of inadmissibility falls when the the probative value of the proposed evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect (R. v. Handy, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 908, 2002 SCC 56). I very much expect that a driver’s history of murdering bicycle messengers or a bicycle messenger’s history of assaulting drivers would meet the admissibility test.
The administration of justice would be brought into disrepute if the Crown were to continue to prosecute following the results of its investigation.
I think you’re wrong.
I disagree with the unsupported supposition that the police performed a more thorough investigation of the matter due to Bryant’s profile than they would have performed for an average Joe. There is nothing in the report that shows an unusual effort by the police when compared to other investigations I have come across.
That being said, media coverage resulted in previous victims of the bicycle courier coming forward, so in that sense, Bryant’s high profile was very helpful.
My impression is that this case did indeed get ‘special treatment’ - because of the fear that the defendant’s status would influence the case, they flew in a special prosecutor, carefully vetted, from BC - but that is just why it was tossed: so mauch careful attention was paid to it in advance that the holes in the case became glaringly obvious pre-trial.
I thought about that. In the end, holding a trial just to "clear the air’ when there is no chance of a conviction would I think bring the administration of justice into greater disrepute than not holding a trial that many people, unconnected with the events, want to see held.
The guilt or innocence issue is not symmetrical: the crown has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s why you coulod never do the reverse.