Judge blasts acquitted reservists

[Monsoon]

The article uses both terms, "acquitted" and "found not guilty." Now, I'm not a lawyer (real, barrack-room, or TV) but I was under the impression that there were three basic decisions:
- guilty,
- not guilty, and
- acquitted.

Acquittal refers to any end of a trial that doesn't involve a finding of "guilty". It includes "not guilty", but also dismissal or dropping of the charges for procedural reasons.

 

[Journeyman]

Thanks for the terminology explanations DAPat & HamilT....

I guess I'll just stick to not getting caught 

To quote those wise philosphers, The Traveling Wilburys:
"Jan had told him many times; it was you, to me, who taught
In Jersey anything's legal as long as you don't get caught

Thus endeth the sermon of Tweeter and the Monkey Man  ;D

 

[40below]

Interesting how you never hear these comments from judges when they address drug dealers, child molesters or gang members.

Really? I've been covering criminal courts on and off for 20 years, in two provinces and one territory. Judges rip into people convicted of crimes all the time, and in fact, some old-schoolers make the lecture worse than the sentence. There were a few judges whose sentencings I'd attend specifically because of the surgical precision they would use to take apart the person they were about to send to prison.

And after I don't know how many thousands of sentencing hearings I've sat through, I'll assure you that judges save their best material for people before them who have done something especially heinous and who are not career criminals - accountants who embezzle, fathers who molest their daughters and yes, reservists who act like gang thugs – than for some rounder doing life on the instalment plan. No point giving the latter a lecture, he doesn't care.

 

[40below]

Acquittal refers to any end of a trial that doesn't involve a finding of "guilty". It includes "not guilty", but also dismissal or dropping of the charges for procedural reasons.

That's not correct. An acquittal is a finding of not guilty by a judge or a jury, after which point, the person cannot be legally retried for the same offence.

If charges are dropped or stayed, they can be refiled by the Crown and the defendant can be tried again - the person has not been 'acquitted.' An acquittal is a final decision of a court, not the mere abandonment of process.

 

[geo]

geo, they let you talk to "people" at work??  I thought they had you tucked away in a deep, dark corner?

Am allowed to come out once in a while... usually to clean up someone else's mess

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

That's not correct. An acquittal is a finding of not guilty by a judge or a jury, after which point, the person cannot be legally retried for the same offence.

If charges are dropped or stayed, they can be refiled by the Crown and the defendant can be tried again - the person has not been 'acquitted.' An acquittal is a final decision of a court, not the mere abandonment of process.

EXAMPLE:

http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2009/02/28/8565086-sun.html

Murder probe not over yet

Two men, now free to resume lives put on hold after their arrests in the slaying of teenager Abdikiram Abdikiram 11 months ago, could face charges again with new evidence, police and attorneys said yesterday.
But they said once a prosecutor has charges withdrawn, the Crown risks a court battle if it tries to recharge a released person.

"They can do it, but the defence can apply to have it declared an abuse of process," an ex-prosecutor said.
Brendan Crawley, an attorney general's spokesman for Crowns, said the department would not comment on whether any withdrawn charges can be laid again.

Crown attorney Joe Callagham asked a judge Thursday to withdraw charges against two men and a woman accused of harbouring one of them.
"The evidence of the identity of the shooter and the evidence of the degree of participation of the second male are insufficient to pass the test at a preliminary hearing," he told the judge.
"The Crown has no reasonable prospect of conviction on the murder charge."

Owen Anthony Smith and Wendell Damian Cuff, both 25 and each charged with first-degree murder, were later released.
Their lawyers yesterday said the pair would not grant interviews.

Toronto Police spokesman Mark Pugash said investigators are "disappointed" by the decision. They felt they had a case that should go before the court and be judged on the evidence.

"If new information came forward, we'd look at it ... it might be useful," he said yesterday.
But while the file on Abdikiram's fatal shooting last March 14 in Lawrence Heights remains open, "there is no active investigation."

In the wake of complaints from members of the Somalian community that surveillance cameras are useless, Pugash said they have been the key to numerous past convictions, including of killers.
Some Somalian critics said they could not understand why a dramatic surveillance video of the shooter firing repeatedly at a group of young men while walking backwards was insufficient evidence.

But the image, released by police with an appeal for witnesses, shows the shooter in silhouette, plus two people fleeing -- one close to the killer -- the other a block away.
Investigators relied on Abdikiram's five wounded companions to testify, sources said. But Cuff's lawyer, John Struthers, told reporters "they were having difficulty with the witnesses. There is fear and people live by the code, not co-operating with police."

After 20 years in Canada, the victim's father, Ahmed Abdikarim Mohammed, said the family is so upset, it will return to Somalia.

IAN.ROBERTSON@SUNMEDIA.CA

 

[chris_log]

Really? I've been covering criminal courts on and off for 20 years, in two provinces and one territory. Judges rip into people convicted of crimes all the time, and in fact, some old-schoolers make the lecture worse than the sentence. There were a few judges whose sentencings I'd attend specifically because of the surgical precision they would use to take apart the person they were about to send to prison.

Read up a couple posts (as opposed to addressing the second post in a four page topic) where I clarified my comments, I was referring to how the media reports these things. I.e. you don't often see "Judge Blasts Drug Dealer Found Not-Guilty of Crime X". I just worded it quite poorly.

I'm well aware that judges like to get their two-cents in on an offender, whether they are found guilty or not guilty.

 

[McG]

If they were found not guilty by the courts I think it would be kind of hard not sustifiy  not offering them a new contract when their current one expires.

... would also be grounds for a grievance that they would win.

Just because they were found not guilty by a court, it does not mean that they did not demonstrate conduct completely unacceptable for the CF.  While the judges opinion seems to suggest their conduct might justify a 5F, I don't think there is anyone on this site familiar enough with the case to say for certain one way or another. 

Speculating on the outcome of an administrative review will be about as unhelpful as speculating on the outcome of a criminal trial.  So, lets wrap-up that conversation for now. 

 

[Brad Sallows]

It is entirely consistent for a verdict to be "not guilty" and for there to be undisputed facts in evidence that document discreditable conduct.  It is surely appropriate for a judge to admonish the accused in any trial for discreditable conduct, provided the line is not crossed into "I think you're guilty, no matter what the jury decided" territory.

I can not see why the CF would not undertake consideration of, or should have to ignore, facts admitted publicly and officially (ie. in court).

I hold reservations as to how much "higher" a standard of conduct young people should be held to during or shortly after attending the foreshortened reserve component equivalent of basic training.  In my view the practical reality is that some time-in is required for the institution and in particular for the command and NCO chains and peers to emphasize the values and standards of the CF.  Until then, the "standard" is that applicable to any adult.

 

[40below]

I can not see why the CF would not undertake consideration of, or should have to ignore, facts admitted publicly and officially (ie. in court).

Oh, they will. I live in a military town and do a lot of court cases, which sometimes involve military personnel. In a case involving one, in every single instance, there are only two people writing stuff down: me and someone from the CF taking note of everything that is said. In cases involving soldiers from Fort Drum who got drunk and stupid here, it's an American officer.

I dunno what the CF does with it, but it's safe to say at the very least it goes up the COC and back down into their pers files forever after a detour into the JAG office.

 

[Cleared Hot]

I can not see why the CF would not undertake consideration of, or should have to ignore, facts admitted publicly and officially (ie. in court).

Disciplinary vs Admin action.  This is certainly not the end of this for these chaps.

I hold reservations as to how much "higher" a standard of conduct young people should be held to during or shortly after attending the foreshortened reserve component equivalent of basic training.  In my view the practical reality is that some time-in is required for the institution and in particular for the command and NCO chains and peers to emphasize the values and standards of the CF.  Until then, the "standard" is that applicable to any adult.

If you had said that reservists training was not "equal" enough to allow them to deploy on ops as peers with the reg force every reservist on here would be getting out the flame throwers.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[dapaterson]

DAOD 5019-2 specifies the review process following such an incident.

As a general principle, the appropriate administrative action is the one that best reflects the degree of incompatibility between the CF member’s conduct and performance deficiency and the CF member’s continued service in the CF.

 

[geo]

Disciplinary vs Admin action.  This is certainly not the end of this for these chaps.

Based on the published stories, the "victim" took the 1st swing and started the doneybrook... with a shot to the back of the head of the "agressor".

Unless the CF has more info than the civy court, there isn't much the CF can do WRT this incident.

 

[Cleared Hot]

"Your behaviour was nothing short of disgraceful," Superior Court Justice Robert Clark thundered.

While noting a jury's verdict reigns supreme, Clark said he had also listened as the men testified during the two-week trial.

And what the judge said he heard were accounts showing the three men had little regard for the sanctity of human life because each admitted leaving Hesam Zeinal-Zedeh, 25, lying unconscious on Richmond St. W. with a fractured skull.

Prosecutor Lorna Spencer alleged that the injury was the result of a "vicious three-on-one fight."

The defence argued he had fractured his skull when he hit his head on the pavement and not from the kicks to the head the prosecution alleged the men had delivered.

During the trial, Zeinal-Zedeh and Mahani testified they were minding their own business sharing a sandwich when they were approached by three men around 11:30 p.m. on July 14, 2006. Both testified the trio warned the couple they were military personnel.

Clark said he was appalled the three had tried "intimidate" the couple by "boasting" about being in the military.

They were not innocent, they were found "not guilty" two different beasts.  Just because it apparently couldn't be proven whether the fracture came from the fall or the boots to the head doesn't mean that they didn't do anything.  Judges aren't stupid, this one heard the testimony and knew these three were getting off on a technicality thus the lecture.  The CF's attending officer at the trial will have heard the same evidence and when he files his report there could be lots more that the military decides to do.  Hell, the military doesn't let it's serving members give their opinions in public, how do you think they are going to feel about them publicly announcing that they were military just before they boot-**** some guy in a 3:1 fight and leaving him for dead.

Two thoughts, First, yes people pick fights with troops so when you defend yourself don't announce it to the world that you are CF.  Second, proportionality may be what we call it in LOAC, but reasonable force applies in the civi world as well.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>If you had said that reservists training was not "equal" enough to allow them to deploy on ops as peers with the reg force every reservist on here would be getting out the flame throwers.

I doubt it.  The vast majority of reservists are aware that completion of basic training doesn't qualify one to do much of anything except proceed to the next level of training.

 

[McG]

and  :locked: