Sunday, September 23, 2007

 

Reconciling the demand for trials to be held within a reasonable time

.
Noted in passing ...



As Mr. Justice Sopinka wrote for the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada in P. v. Morin (1992), C.C.C. (3d) 1 at page 19:

How are we to reconcile the demand that trials are to be held within a reasonable time in the imperfect world of scarce resources?

While account must be taken of the fact that the state does not have unlimited funds and other government programs compete for the available resources, this consideration cannot be used to render section 11(b) meaningless.

The court cannot simply accede to the government's allocation of resources and tailor the period of permissible delay accordingly. The weight to be given to resource limitations must be assessed in light of the fact that the government has a constitutional obligation to commit sufficient resources to prevent unreasonable delay which distinguishes this obligation from many others that compete for funds with the administration of justice.


"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Comments:
Excellent Mary

Now, we know that the Campbell Administration is watching this blog, along with the MSM. So maybe they will now realize that there are decisions in place which smack in the face of what they are attempting to do in the legislature raids. My only concern now is that someone will have to take them to court to get them to release funds and materials.
 
Since we have to wait close to a month for the next court date, perhaps you could provide us with a timeline for when relevant events to this case actually occurred. I would be particularly interested in knowing when Jamie Elmhirst left his job as a special assistant in the ministry of land protection to join Pilothouse.
 
anon at 9:32

Though I don't answer your particular question, you can find a significant amount of background at:

From April 8, 2006
http://houseofinfamy.blogspot.com/2006/04/brief-summary-to-date-for-those-who.html

and from April 12, 2006
http://houseofinfamy.blogspot.com/2006/04/dramatis-personae-sometimes-its.html
 
Anon 9:32am

I'll work on that information for you. I do know he was first appointed, by Order in Council, on June 5, 2001.

The relevant OIC is No 558 (effective June 5, 2001). Elmhirst was appointed at that time as a Ministerial Assistant in the Ministry of Water, Land and Air protection. He was, therefore, with the Campbell government from its earliest days after the 2001 election.

There will be a revoking OIC that rescinded that appointment - which, for the moment - I haven't been able to track down.

You might, however, be interested in this:
https://eservice.ag.gov.bc.ca/lra/report.jsp

This is a summary of his activities as a 'registered' lobbyist.

I'll try to get back here and post the information with regard to the other OIC when I have it.
 
For what it is worth, I overheard a few of David's buddies the other day at their local watering hole - the Bird of Paradise Pub on Glanford.

The claim was that the "inside scoop" was that David and Bobby were going to have the cases tossed for an "unreasonable delay".
 
Your inside scoop is way off base. The defence lawyers have been clear that the way to have this case tossed is based upon the conduct of the RCMP and Special Prosecutor. This will be the basis for the abuse of process application.

A few guys drinking in a pub can't be believed when they probably work for the government and don't know the facts.

You can be assured that folks inside the Campbell government are not looking forward to the mud starting to fly in December. Remember how they reacted in the spring, not too happy!!

Check out the Van Sun (Sept 19)where the government is not releasing information to the defence.
 
.
anon 3:39,

One of those guys in the pub could just be a defence lawyer. Could be a key player. Or could be your long-lost Uncle Ebeneezer. You don't know. We don't know. But we can talk things over. OK?

"For what it's worth ..." our correspondent said to us ... "I overheard ..." Overheard what? Well, the same thing most of us have been saying: that Basi Virk Basi team (as well as a few others) would love to get this trial thrown out because of delays, because of non-disclosure, because of errors in the search warrants, whatever.

I want to hear what people think, what people are saying about this trial. Enough with the shushing.

.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home