home bbs files messages ]

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   TURMEL: After grow charge withdrawn Judg   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   TURMEL: After grow charge withdrawn Judge seizes Luc Paquette equipment anyway   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   for the withdrawn charge?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   on the withdrawn charge back, his equipment.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   that had been withdrawn!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