Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Judge can't end a trial just because he has 'heard enough,' appeal court rules
Judge can’t end a trial just because he has ‘heard enough,’ appeal court rules
“What happened here was a serious violation of natural justice,” Superior Court Justice Suhail Akhtar finds in case of provincial court judge who acquitted accused man without hearing his defence.
By JACQUES GALLANT
Legal Affairs Reporter
Fri., May 11, 2018
When the Supreme Court said trial judges should do their part to reduce delay in the justice system, it wasn’t suggesting what Justice Richard Blouin did in a 2017 criminal case, an appeal court has ruled.
Blouin, a provincial court judge in Toronto, cut the case short and acquitted the accused after hearing from the Crown’s only witness, but before the defence was able to call its evidence, and before either side could make closing submissions.
“There is a provision in there talking about preventing delay,” Blouin said in his October 2017 ruling, referring to a Supreme Court decision in R v. Cody.
...
“What happened here was a serious violation of natural justice,” Superior Court Justice Suhail Akhtar finds in case of provincial court judge who acquitted accused man without hearing his defence.
By JACQUES GALLANT
Legal Affairs Reporter
Fri., May 11, 2018
When the Supreme Court said trial judges should do their part to reduce delay in the justice system, it wasn’t suggesting what Justice Richard Blouin did in a 2017 criminal case, an appeal court has ruled.
Blouin, a provincial court judge in Toronto, cut the case short and acquitted the accused after hearing from the Crown’s only witness, but before the defence was able to call its evidence, and before either side could make closing submissions.
“There is a provision in there talking about preventing delay,” Blouin said in his October 2017 ruling, referring to a Supreme Court decision in R v. Cody.
...
More at link.