The driver who killed a cyclist last night used to be the Attorney General of Ontario.

[Northern_Piper]

@Eats_Crayons

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.

Two points in response.

The first is that in our system, there is an ongoing duty on the Crown to review its case, and a duty to stay or withdraw charges if the Crown determines that there is no likelihood of conviction. So if new evidence comes up after the charges are laid, the Crown is required to take that into account in assessing whether to continue with the prosecution. These parallel duties recognise that the function of the Crown is not to secure a conviction at all costs. As well, the trial process is not an investigative one. The Crown only proceeds to trial once it has all the evidence and assessed it.

So yes, justice has to be seen to be done, but in some cases, that means the Crown staying the charges and saying that it has done so because there is no reasonable likelihood of conviction. That duty on the Crown to do so is an important part of the justice system, and this is an example of that aspect of the justice system working. The public is seeing the justice system unfold - the Crown dropping charges because a conviction is unlikely is a key part of the justice system.

Second, you’re right that it would never work in reverse, because our system functions on the presumption of innocence. If there is doubt, it always works in the favour of the accused, not the state.

[Malthus]

@Muffin

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.

No slam against the police investigation, but the decision not to go forward was that of the procecutor; and he was not your usual prosecutor.

Again, I don’t think that there was anything untoward in that - it is simply that a very high-profile case, with a special prosecutor and the glare of the media, is simply going to be different than your ordinary run of the mill traffic accident case.

[Swallowed_My_Cellphone]

@Muffin

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.

I was under the impression that Bryant’s lawyers had a whack of forensic examination done. I don’t think EC was saying the police did more work than normal, but that the average person probably wouldn’t have been able to have an independent forensics team do a thorough analysis and then compare notes with the police’s team.

I certainly wouldn’t have the resources to pay for what was essentially a parallel investigation.

@Leaffan

“In Ontario, the problem is particularly acute: The average of cases stayed, dismissed or withdrawn is consistently nearly 40%, and it has had the highest rate of failed prosecutions in the country for each of the past five years.”

Holy crap! Seriously?

@Northern Piper

The first is that in our system, there is an ongoing duty on the Crown to review its case, and a duty to stay or withdraw charges if the Crown determines that there is no likelihood of conviction.

Question: now that the charges have been withdrawn, if new evidence comes up—like say someone has video footage of Bryant plotting to kill someone just for the thrill of it, and had determined that antagonizing a cyclist was the best way to go—could the charges be filed again?

[Muffin]

@Swallowed_My_Cellphone

Question: now that the charges have been withdrawn, if new evidence comes up—like say someone has video footage of Bryant plotting to kill someone just for the thrill of it, and had determined that antagonizing a cyclist was the best way to go—could the charges be filed again?

Yes, however, in the usual course of prosecutions it is rare, and may be open to argument against it, such as abuse of process or being past a limitation period.

[mcott]

@Northern_Piper

Two points in response.

The first is that in our system, there is an ongoing duty on the Crown to review its case, and a duty to stay or withdraw charges if the Crown determines that there is no likelihood of conviction. So if new evidence comes up after the charges are laid, the Crown is required to take that into account in assessing whether to continue with the prosecution. These parallel duties recognise that the function of the Crown is not to secure a conviction at all costs. As well, the trial process is not an investigative one. The Crown only proceeds to trial once it has all the evidence and assessed it.

So yes, justice has to be seen to be done, but in some cases, that means the Crown staying the charges and saying that it has done so because there is no reasonable likelihood of conviction. That duty on the Crown to do so is an important part of the justice system, and this is an example of that aspect of the justice system working. The public is seeing the justice system unfold - the Crown dropping charges because a conviction is unlikely is a key part of the justice system.

Second, you’re right that it would never work in reverse, because our system functions on the presumption of innocence. If there is doubt, it always works in the favour of the accused, not the state.

Thank you all for the corrections, and information. Page four has been very informative. Still doesn’t seem right to me - money walks, justice scampers away, and all. But I do respect the opinions of our resident legal people, and the issue has been reframed in my mind.

NP if I ever get out to SK again, I’ll buy you a beverage of your choice, as long as a “walk and talk” in Wascanna park is included - damn, I hated those geese as a five year old!

[Northern_Piper]

@mcott

NP if I ever get out to SK again, I’ll buy you a beverage of your choice, as long as a “walk and talk” in Wascanna park is included - damn, I hated those geese as a five year old!

You’re welcome, and sure! but try to make it sometime between late spring and early fall - walking the Lake in January is counter-indicated!

[Muffin]

Or come to north-west Ontario, where the judges ski in January (I wonder why it is that two from the high court are very much into alpine skiing, whereas two from the low court are very much into cross contry skiing).