Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    can.legal    |    Debating Canuck legal system quirks    |    10,932 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 10,481 of 10,932    |
|    John KingofthePaupers Turmel to All    |
|    TURMEL: After grow charge withdrawn Judg    |
|    21 Oct 18 07:28:45    |
      From: johnturmel@gmail.com              TURMEL: After grow charge withdrawn Judge seizes Luc Paquette equipment anyway              Friday Oct 19 2018       Before Cour du Quebec Judge Laflamme              JCT: Recap: Luc Paquette was charged for Production of       marijuana and Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking in       the big Project Nouage raid on more than 2 dozen growers.       While others got pleaded guilty by Defence lawyer Michel       Swanston, Luc filed my self-defence kit and ended up with a       discharge and no criminal record.              When he elected a jury trial for his Production charge, the       Crown withdrew it so they could keep the trial for       Possession in lower court. What about the equipment evidence       for the withdrawn charge?              After the close of his trial, when the 30-day deadline to       appeal had passed, he went to the police to get the evidence       on the withdrawn charge back, his equipment. When the Crown       realised they had not asked for a seizure order from the       judge, they booked a hearing on Friday Oct 19 to keep all       the seized equipment.              Once they withdrew the Production charge, the equipment was       as relevant to the Possession charge he was convicted of as       his TV!              Had he had nothing growing at the time he was busted but he       was still charged with Possession of his pot, but they       seized his equipment and his TV anyway. Should they be       allowed to keep stuff that had nothing to with his       possession charge?              He argued that once they withdrew the Production charge, the       evidence was no longer relevant and there should have been       no order to seize material unrelated to the remaining       charge.              Didn't matter. Even though the appeal period was over and       the matter was functus officio, closed, she got the file re-       opened and the Judge Laflamme issue an order after the       appeal period was over seizing the evidence for the charge       that had been withdrawn! Har har har har har har.              Guess now Luc will have to appeal! And we'll learn if the       cops missed getting his TV too.              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca