What ever happened to Sgt. Dennis Mahoney-Bruer?

nfq said:
You talking about actual judges or JP?
Click to expand...

Great question that I see boyoboy has failed to respond to. Judges have legal training and were, in virtually every instance a lawyer, (either defense of crown), before being appointed as a judge. Anyone, can apply to be appointed as a JP, no formal legal training is required.

In the case being discussed, the accused had his trial held before a judge, not a JP. Cases before JP's are low level cases, IE, traffic violations, parking tags, and bylaw offences. Anything criminal in nature is heard by a Judge.
 
hedo2002 said:
Great question that I see boyoboy has failed to respond to. Judges have legal training and were, in virtually every instance a lawyer, (either defense of crown), before being appointed as a judge. Anyone, can apply to be appointed as a JP, no formal legal training is required.

In the case being discussed, the accused had his trial held before a judge, not a JP. Cases before JP's are low level cases, IE, traffic violations, parking tags, and bylaw offences. Anything criminal in nature is heard by a Judge.
Click to expand...

And with respect to the concept of reasonable doubt, case law has set the standard. For example R v Lifchus:

"The accused enters these proceedings presumed to be innocent. That presumption of innocence remains throughout the case until such time as the Crown has on the evidence put before you satisfied you beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty.

What does the expression “beyond a reasonable doubt” mean?

The term “beyond a reasonable doubt” has been used for a very long time and is a part of our history and traditions of justice. It is so engrained in our criminal law that some think it needs no explanation, yet something must be said regarding its meaning.

A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary or frivolous doubt. It must not be based upon sympathy or prejudice. Rather, it is based on reason and common sense. It is logically derived from the evidence or absence of evidence.

Even if you believe the accused is probably guilty or likely guilty, that is not sufficient. In those circumstances you must give the benefit of the doubt to the accused and acquit because the Crown has failed to satisfy you of the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

On the other hand you must remember that it is virtually impossible to prove anything to an absolute certainty and the Crown is not required to do so. Such a standard of proof is impossibly high.
In short if, based upon the evidence before the court, you are sure that the accused committed the offence you should convict since this demonstrates that you are satisfied of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is not a magic incantation that needs to be repeated word for word. It is nothing more than a suggested form that would not be faulted if it were used. For example, in cases where a reverse onus provision must be considered, it would be helpful to bring to the attention of the jury either the evidence which might satisfy that onus or the absence of evidence applicable to it. Any form of instruction that complied with the applicable principles and avoided the pitfalls referred to would be satisfactory.

Further, it is possible that an error in the instructions as to the standard of proof may not constitute a reversible error. It was observed in R. v. W. (D.), 1991 CanLII 93 (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742, at p. 758, that the verdict ought not be disturbed “if the charge, when read as a whole, makes it clear that the jury could not have been under any misapprehension as to the correct burden and standard of proof to apply”. On the other hand, if the charge as a whole gives rise to the reasonable likelihood that the jury misapprehended the standard of proof, then as a general rule the verdict will have to be set aside and a new trial directed.""
 
Last edited:
fastar1 said:
More of the same...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/sunshine-list-police-officers-suspended-with-pay-1.4053012
Click to expand...


Flywheel said:
From the article:

"The OPP declined to provide a list of its suspended officers and said a Freedom of Information request would be necessary to release the names."

Nice.
Click to expand...


I hate to use such a term, but this Ontario government and their associated arms like OPP really needs to be drained of the toxic waste. There's no other way to put it, to correct these virtually criminal acts in every ordinary citizen's eyes ... regardless whether the judge could deliver a conviction or not.
 
hedo2002 said:
Great question that I see boyoboy has failed to respond to. Judges have legal training and were, in virtually every instance a lawyer, (either defense of crown), before being appointed as a judge. Anyone, can apply to be appointed as a JP, no formal legal training is required.

In the case being discussed, the accused had his trial held before a judge, not a JP. Cases before JP's are low level cases, IE, traffic violations, parking tags, and bylaw offences. Anything criminal in nature is heard by a Judge.
Click to expand...

haven't been here awhile. the matter where the judge said "a weak case at best", and then convicted me; was a criminal trial. during the (weeks earlier) preliminary hearing my lawyer sought to have the charges dropped. after a 2 hour preliminary hearing, a judge stated "on the chance of being wrong, and I have been wrong before, I am not going to drop (withdraw? stay? or something to that effect) the charges....." the trial was moved to a larger city, hence the quotes from two different judges. also, during the preliminary hearing, the judge also yelled at the (only civilian crown witness) during questioning from my lawyer - "QUIT LOOKING TO THE POLICE OFFICERS WHEN YOU HAVE BEEN ASKED TO ANSWER A QUESTION!" nice...solid witness looking at the cops because he didn't know what he was supposed to answer...repeatedly... until the judge yelled at him..

and you want to tell me reasonable doubt isn't an arbitrary decision? lmao.

a long ways from saying "I know what you did" and then finding not guilty. Invisible layers...
 
Last edited:
"satisfied you" = arbitrary decision

...no matter how long winded copied legal dribbled answers are on what is reasonable doubt..here's your pass copper..
 
Last edited:
Rob MacLennan said:
And with respect to the concept of reasonable doubt, case law has set the standard. For example R v Lifchus:

"The accused enters these proceedings presumed to be innocent. That presumption of innocence remains throughout the case until such time as the Crown has on the evidence put before you satisfied you beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty.

What does the expression “beyond a reasonable doubt” mean?

The term “beyond a reasonable doubt” has been used for a very long time and is a part of our history and traditions of justice. It is so engrained in our criminal law that some think it needs no explanation, yet something must be said regarding its meaning.

A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary or frivolous doubt. It must not be based upon sympathy or prejudice. Rather, it is based on reason and common sense. It is logically derived from the evidence or absence of evidence.

Even if you believe the accused is probably guilty or likely guilty, that is not sufficient. In those circumstances you must give the benefit of the doubt to the accused and acquit because the Crown has failed to satisfy you of the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

On the other hand you must remember that it is virtually impossible to prove anything to an absolute certainty and the Crown is not required to do so. Such a standard of proof is impossibly high.
In short if, based upon the evidence before the court, you are sure that the accused committed the offence you should convict since this demonstrates that you are satisfied of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is not a magic incantation that needs to be repeated word for word. It is nothing more than a suggested form that would not be faulted if it were used. For example, in cases where a reverse onus provision must be considered, it would be helpful to bring to the attention of the jury either the evidence which might satisfy that onus or the absence of evidence applicable to it. Any form of instruction that complied with the applicable principles and avoided the pitfalls referred to would be satisfactory.

Further, it is possible that an error in the instructions as to the standard of proof may not constitute a reversible error. It was observed in R. v. W. (D.), 1991 CanLII 93 (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742, at p. 758, that the verdict ought not be disturbed “if the charge, when read as a whole, makes it clear that the jury could not have been under any misapprehension as to the correct burden and standard of proof to apply”. On the other hand, if the charge as a whole gives rise to the reasonable likelihood that the jury misapprehended the standard of proof, then as a general rule the verdict will have to be set aside and a new trial directed.""
Click to expand...

please explain to me how "case law" has been made for the "concept of reasonable doubt?" Case law requires a precedent setting case on a point of law does it not? Not for a definition or concept. What precedent setting point of law was made for the concept of reasonable doubt ? lmao rubbish.
 
Last edited:
boyoboy said:
please explain to me how "case law" has been made for the "concept of reasonable doubt?" Case law requires a precedent setting case on a point of law does it not? Not for a definition or concept. What precedent setting point of law was made for the concept of reasonable doubt ? lmao rubbish.
Click to expand...

Law creates the terms. Case law refines the definitions. It really is quite simple.
 
Originally Posted by Rob MacLennan View Post
And with respect to the concept of reasonable doubt, case law has set the standard.


So, no law to refer to on your stated "case law" on the concept of reasonable doubt.
 
Last edited:
boyoboy said:
Originally Posted by Rob MacLennan View Post
And with respect to the concept of reasonable doubt, case law has set the standard.


So, no law to refer to on your stated "case law" on the concept of reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

The law states that so-and-so, guilty of such-and-such a crime must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Lawyers test the law by pushing the envelope on what "reasonable" means. Judges decide how it should (typically narrowly) be defined and rule. That's referred to as 'case law.'

Like I said; simple.
 
case law on a concept. lmao. a concept is a notion or idea. something conceived in the mind. you done digging your heels in on this "case law "?







Corruption and special treatment from the bottom up. Quite simple really. Why defend it?


layer one - poor investigation
layer two - low desire to strongly fight case by crown (work together, wink)
layer three - whew, judge found something doubtful, so he can let overwhelming evidence slide
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom