No one is unaccountable for long- Supreme Court rules Crown prosecutors must testify in Frank Paul inquiry

Posted on by Laila

I firmly believe that no one is unaccountable  for their actions – for long.  Crown prosecutors who chose not to file charges against the VPD officers involved in the Frank Paul death are about to find that out, as the Supreme Court rules they must testify at the Frank Paul inquiry. I’ve followed the Frank Paul story for some time, and you can find those posts here:

https://lailayuile.wordpress.com/2008/01/10/good-cop-bad-cop-whos-telling-the-truth/

https://lailayuile.wordpress.com/2008/01/12/10-years-too-late-for-an-apology/

https://lailayuile.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/inquiry-reveals-disappointing-lack-of-concern-of-frank-pauls-death/

https://lailayuile.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/and-if-all-the-cover-ups-so-far-werent-enough/

https://lailayuile.wordpress.com/2008/01/26/left-wing-larry-gives-commanding-performance-on-the-stand-defending-his-decision-but-has-no-recollection-of-frank-pauls-death/

Paul, a 47-year-old Mi’kmaq man from New Brunswick, died of hypothermia the night of December 5, 1998, after Vancouver police dragged his unconscious body out of a downtown drunk tank and left him in an alley in wet clothes. I  shall look forward to hearing what reasons the crown give for not approving charges against the officers involved. Maybe one day we will be privy as to what the crown prosecutor who approved minimal charges against Benjamin Monty Robinson was thinking as well.

I think we are entering a new time where those involved in the maintenance and administration of our laws and justice, must begin to offer the people  full transparency and accountability for their actions, just as we all must under the laws of our country. To expect anything less is to defeat the purpose of justice in the first place, and the people will demand nothing less.

12 thoughts on “No one is unaccountable for long- Supreme Court rules Crown prosecutors must testify in Frank Paul inquiry”

  1. I haven’t yet read the court decision but, on the surface, this seems like extraordinary good news. But, Laila, I switched on the former news top dog NW this morning for a moment. With the Supreme Court decision, the breaking casino scandal, etc., they were talking about backyard chickens. Wow, how the once mighty have fallen.

    Michael Smyth who should know what is going on with thieves running our provincial government, talks on radio about the inconsequential. So typical.

    If anyone needs confirmation that our justice system is corrupt, read about Frank Paul and justice at The Davies Commission.

    http://www.frankpaulinquiry.ca/

    Like

  2. I believe our justice and legal system needs a complete review and overhaul. Look at the case against our former NDP Premier, Glen Clark. What was the evidence to support the raid on his home? What was the evidence to put charges against him? Why wasn’t the police officer in charge of the investigation and raid at the trial and testifying?
    And then there is the case of Brian Mulroney. Why was the investigation against him stopped?
    Our justice system must be removed from political interference!

    Like

  5. I’ve always said, as has Sal, that the only way to have judges account for their actions is to elect them, not appoint them. Qualifcations and competence are two entirely different things, and sometimes I wonder how competent a judge is when I hear their ruling.

    As for the justice/legal system, I agree it needs an overhaul, and it has to be extensive. There are so many failings that people are often endangered as as result of those failings. Inadequate training, and a lack of knowledge can be a potentially deadly combination, and leads to a lack of faith in the system as a whole.

    Like

  6. Laila, electing judges is not the answer. They do that in many jurisdictions in the US, usually the more backwards jurisdictions. Just think how our politicians refuse to plan long term because their focus is on no more than the next election. Then think of an innocent man before an elected judge. The evidence is clear, that the accused is innocent, but the innocent man is unpopular in the town, maybe because he is actually TOO morally upstanding for the majority of the community.

    So do you think the judge will base his verdict on the evidence and risk the ire of the voters he will face next year? I think not.

    It’s the same thing with Harper’s elected Senate. Pure democracy is not pure – there has to be some kind of balance or it just becomes democracy of the mob. In other words, something has to balance sheer majority opinion (often shaped by powers like Glow Ball with an agenda) with regional interests, and protect the interests of minorities. Everybody wants an elected Senate, as long as they think they will win the vote – the losers, or the minority still have rights, even if they don’t get to decide particular policy.

    As imperfect as the US system is the bi-cameral house with the House of Reps being based on straignt population while the Senate is two Senators per State – no matter if you are Montana or California – tends to balance these interests. This is the only thiing that keeps the US from being run entirely from New York, L.A and Dallas.

    The Canadian Senate was designed to provide a regional balance to the Parliament, which is more like the House of Representatives – rep by pop. The main thing wrong with the Canadian Senate is that there is unequal representation, and certain parts are over represented as if it was still 1867. The western provinces of course being the big losers in this scenario, and the Maritimes and Quebec still reflect their importance at the time of Confederation. The number of Senators that PEI is entitled to compared to BC or Alberta is sheer folly. By that standard Prince George and Kamloops should each have their own Senator in the Red Chamber.

    The other thing with the Senate and judicial appointments in Canada is that there is no accountability for the Prime Minister’s appointments to either, as say in the states where those are subject to approval by the Senate, thus sometimes keeping out totally egregious proposed appointees – though not always successful, it at least provides an opportunity to raise issues about the candidate – it obviously didn’t work with Roberts and Scalito, but then the ReThugs controlled all the levers in Wahington, or the equivalent of a Super Majority government.

    One of the biggest problems with Harper is his disrepect for Parliament, thus he tries, so far successfully, to rule as if he had a majority and the opposition is almost as useless as the James Gang!

    Like

  7. I think we are entering a new time where those involved in the maintenance and administration of our laws and justice, must begin to offer the people full transparency and accountability for their actions, just as we all must under the laws of our country. To expect anything less is to defeat the purpose of justice in the first place, and the people will demand nothing less.

    Laila, how can we expect transparency and accountability in the justice system and adherance to the laws of the country when our elected officials seem to be able to operate with complete disregard for transparency, accountability, and the law? Yes I have become very cynical disillutioned with the deterioration of both the justice and political systems in BC, BCE (Before Campbell Era) and even more so during the CE, or as some might like to call it the “Rein of Error”.

    Like

  8. All I know is the morons who have dozens of convictions for crimes are still let out to break into my car, house and garage again. Never been the same since they removed the “bitch” section from canadian law.

    Like

  9. Habitual offender laws were made difficult to enforce by the courts but those laws seem perfectly appropriate to apply against criminals who re-offend regularly. For some crooks, it didn’t much matter because their society revolved around jail. That’s where their friends or potential friends were.

    However, the threat of habitual offender status steered many away from crime.

    Maybe a lawyer or civil rights expert could explain what is wrong with habitual offender statutes. Can’t they be framed in ways acceptable to the courts?

    Like

  10. since the talking heads in government let the SCC make the law it seems to me that us great unwashed get to only shake our heads at 70 plus convictions on some dirbags being allowed loose.

    Like

Comments are closed.