From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: June 21 2017 Quebec Court of Appeal in Montreal. Justice   
   Marie-France Bich presiding, Maxime Lacourciere and a lady   
   showed.   
      
   Adrian Stuerm has an application for leave to appeal his   
   sentence of a mandatory minimum. Max told the Court that our   
   motion for leave to appeal was being contested.   
      
   So while we were waiting during another trial, Adrian gave   
   them each a copy of the June 9 2017 Elliott decision striking   
   down mandatory minimum sentences for Production for the   
   Purpose of Trafficking.   
      
   Adrian simply told the court that the mandatory minimum   
   sentencing for his offence had been struck down in BC just   
   days before and wanted to use the same arguments too.   
      
   Lacourciere mentioned that they would be filing a motion   
   toquash the the appeal as "frivolous" soon.   
      
   He argued that except for exceptional circumstances, one   
   cannot make a Charter challenge at the appeal. Adrian should   
   have made it right at the trial. Note the "exceptional   
   circumstances." Pretty exceptional for another province's   
   highest court to just do what you're asking your highest court   
   to do. And it came out after he was sentenced. Pretty neat   
   timing. Why didn't he raise Elliott at his sentencing? It   
   wasn't there yet.   
      
   The judge pointed out that in releasing Adrian, Justice   
   Schrager had noted that the appeal was not frivolous! Wow.   
      
   So she gave the Crown until July 28 to file his motion to   
   Quash the appeal but twice cautioned that if they change their   
   mind, they should inform the court. Pretty big hints, right?   
      
   And at the same time, they can oppose his motion for leave to   
   appeal sentence. But she also had brought up the fact that he   
   can appeal sentence without a constitutional challenge. In a   
   sense, that's what he's doing by relying on BC, appealing the   
   sentence based on their Charter win, not necessarily having   
   to do one himself even though he asked.   
      
   So it looks like the leave to appeal sentence will be granted   
   whether they consider it a Charter challenge or not. And the   
   chances the Crown's going to quash his "not frivilous" appeal   
   after all those cautions that it wasn't frivolous are   
   pretty low too.   
      
   Felt like a really bad day for the Crown. After all, we only   
   challenge the mandatory minimum so they can reduce his   
   sentence to time served if he doesn't overturn his conviction.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)