Nice:
Former professional boxer Alex Hilton was too drunk to know what he was
doing when he walked into his neighbourhood convenience store in December 2005
with a baseball bat and robbed the owner, a Quebec Court judge ruled Friday.Judge Claude Millette therefore acquitted Hilton, 42, of armed robbery and
instead found him guilty of simple assault, for which he was sentenced to time
served – the equivalent of 10 months in jail – and two years probation.
That’s a bloody brilliant legal precedent for a judge to set. I expect some
sleazy lawyer will try to use this as a drunk driving defence by the end of next
week.
In response to Sean’s post, I received the following bit of Canadian legal trivia via email from someone who works within the machinery;
In response to your last bit of speculation in this article I can only say, “Too late!”—our very own Court of Appeal ruled in a case many years ago that a drinking driver was so drunk he could not understand his “rights to counsel” and was therefore unable to make an informed choice as to whether or not he should submit a sample of his breath for analysis. The outcome?—the results of the Breathalyzer were ruled inadmissible. Since the police did not also charge him with the additional offence of impaired driving, the accused walked without penalty.
Don’t you just love our legal system???
(Kate)
Ahhh……The White privilege…must be nice. It does make Robert Jensen’s assertion all the more plausible, though we really don’t need anymore evidence to substantiate what is blatantly obvious.
Here’s hoping the Crown appeals that one.
Insanity… Who are these judges protecting?
The NDP and the Liberal party are opposing Stephen Harper’s “get
tough on crime” bill. They think it’s too draconian.
On criminals, that is.
Like the murderers of this 15 year old girl.
*
When the public starts to realize that we have no justice system for some time. that it has been dismantled by collectivist
takeover.
To become just a lawyers market tied to a patronage industry called a legal system.
With unelected, picked judges. Who consider criminals have more collectivist rights than tax earning people who don’t commit crime. Living lives only 2 percent of the population can aspire too.
A system built on group law by racial, gender, language, or sexual preference instead of individual responsibility. By atrocious acts done by a living thinking personage, not an agent of unawareness pushed by the winds of society into illegal actions. The addicted treated like victims while they prey on the public.
That will be a sad Panda day for us all. Only anarchy, afire in pandemonium will be the outcome. With death its only real judge left in the aftermath of this leftist inspired volatility.
The case is not precedent settting. Most crimes require two elements: mens rea (the mental element) and actus reus (the physical element).
The Judge did his/her job. He/she appled the law to the facts of the case before him/her.
Your concern about this case being used as a drunk driving defence is uninformed. Some crimes require specific intent. Others, such as drunk driving require only a general intent. The mental element involved in drunk driving is the intention to drive a vehicle. This is a general intent and drunkeness is no defence.
Sean, you do raise an interesting issue. Unlike Canada, in some jurisdictions drunkeness is an aggravating factor rather than a defence. In this case, however, the Judge applied the law and it is inappropiate and unfair to criticize him or her because you disagree with the law.
“When the public starts to realize that we have no justice system for some time.”
Heh. The sheep in this country still actually believe that our system is better than that in the US – ask anyone which country has the higher crime rate, Canada or the US – chances are the response will be the US nine out of ten times. When in fact the overall crime rate in Canada is approx. 8100 per 100,000 population, versus approx 4200 per 100,000 in the US.
By keeping dangerous and repeat offenders in prison for longer periods of time, the US has managed to make huge strides in addressing crime issues and public safety.
Q: What’s the best way of committing the perfect crime?
A: Do it in Canada…even if you are caught, chances are, nothing much is going to happen to you anyway.
I have one question;is idiot school manditory or optional for Canadian judges? I have also noticed that if there is a fine for an offence then the law is applied in full.If there is no fine,just a jail time then the perpetrater seems to be able to get off.
Terry:
I disagree with you. The judge is an idiot. He ignored “black letter” law, the relevant section of the Criminal Code is embodied below. And with respect to s. 33.1(3), I think that an armed robbery would clearly fit the bill:
Self-induced Intoxication
When defence not available
33.1 (1) It is not a defence to an offence referred to in subsection (3) that the accused, by reason of self-induced intoxication, lacked the general intent or the voluntariness required to commit the offence, where the accused departed markedly from the standard of care as described in subsection (2).
Criminal fault by reason of intoxication
(2) For the purposes of this section, a person departs markedly from the standard of reasonable care generally recognized in Canadian society and is thereby criminally at fault where the person, while in a state of self-induced intoxication that renders the person unaware of, or incapable of consciously controlling, their behaviour, voluntarily or involuntarily interferes or threatens to interfere with the bodily integrity of another person.
Application
(3) This section applies in respect of an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament that includes as an element an assault or any other interference or threat of interference by a person with the bodily integrity of another person.
1995, c. 32, s. 1.
Terry
if a person is aware that they are violent or engage in criminal behaviour when drunck, then it is up to them to consider this when they START to drink, and not use drunkeness as excuse for after the fact. The whole Hilton clan is a disaster were the law is concerned. It amazes me that they have not been declared dangerous offenders and heaved in jail permenantly. Opps, that may be cruel and unusual punishment for the poor dears!!
And as to the validity of Hilton’s defence of intoxication, the news article below indicates that he was NOT too drunk to remember to wear a mask…
An aside, of the four brothers, apparently Stewart was the sole brother to show a little bit of consideration for society by removing himself from the gene pool…
[“]
Former boxer Alex Hilton denied bail
Last Updated: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 | 7:23 PM ET
Former Montreal boxer Alex Hilton has been denied bail after being charged with holding up a convenience store.
The 40-year-old was allegedly armed with a baseball bat and wearing a mask at the time of the incident on the weekend. It’s also alleged he took money from the store’s cash register.
Police said Hilton was chased by a client outside the Montreal store after the robbery and later turned himself in to police.
Hilton, who is in custody, will be back in court on Dec. 22 for another hearing on charges of armed robbery and possession of a dangerous weapon.
The court rejected his lawyer’s argument that Hilton should be out of custody and follow strict conditions until his next court appearance.
Hilton was the Canadian middleweight champ during his boxing heyday in the early 1980s. His brothers, Matthew and Davey Jr., were even more formidable pugilists – among the biggest names in Canadian boxing at the time and both world champions.
Since then, all three have been knee-deep in trouble with the law.
Alex has piled up arrests for driving under the influence, while Davey Jr. and Matthew once teamed up to rob a doughnut shop.
In May 2001, Davey Jr. was sentenced to seven years in prison for sexually abusing two sisters under the age of 14. He was also stripped of the World Boxing Council super-middle weight title he won just months earlier.
Hilton’s other brother, Stewart, drove into a bridge abutment when he was 17, killing himself and his pregnant girlfriend.
This reminds me of an old Steve Martin bit where he says two simple words in the english language can get you out of trouble. “I forgot” as in “I forgot armed robbery was illegal”. This one aint far off.
Bruce :
Heh. The sheep in this country still actually believe that our system is better than that in the US – ask anyone which country has the higher crime rate,
I agree completely that most Canadians by the media & various venues are drugged into a somatic coma. The Eastern socialist mentality has bleed us all dry. In the West at least we see it by our continually being looted by them for there ever more expansive political plots.
Thing is by this ruling, its now almost legal to rob liquor stores if your drunk. Think about that for a while. The implications of all those bums who need drink. The various variations of crime. I mean shoot they guy used a baseball bat. Why not just say if you’re a crook, you have immunity by liberal Dom. This ought to wake even the dead, if not rage at their violations perpetrated daily towards us by these vultures.
By the time these socialist judges are done. Criminals will be allowed to just walk into anyone’s home to loot it for any Varity of reasons. All because there designated victims. Your not of course. Your society, & therefore culpable in these black robed self confessed infallible mini popes. As the enabler of this by actually earning a living.
Particularly if your not with a group as termed victims or an ethic, sexually, gender based officialy offended .
Sooner rather than latter people will explode when this becomes normal . Except of course in the gated communities. These elites reside in , because of the very conditions they condone & cause. Its why we have so many gangs now. There is no more protection for children from these predators by the police because of the now norms of status law. Where some cannot be arrested (read Caledonia) they are shielded by the very law they flaunt. Sexual evil does have carte blanch or a slap for destroying whole lives. Sometimes in heaps of sufferers torn into shattered lives.
They have given Rome to the Huns while hiding out.
Terry Gain shows his true Toronto Liberal lawyer colours. Shouldn’t you be posting over at Babble Terry?
Sean, No need to wait a week, a bus driver got a conditional discharge this week for driving with passengers at twice the legal limit. The reason the judge gave was that the bus driver was an alcoholic. Read it for yourselves.banffcragandcanyou.com
I seem to remember a few years back the drunk defense was used successfully in a rape case.
Bob,
I may not agree with Terry Gain either, but the argument was well thought out and presented well.
Your comment added nothing to the debate.
I have seen a lot (Ti-Guy, McLelland) worse than Terry that merely argue a left wing ideology without any mention of contrasting points.
So take it easy on guys that don’t agree, especially if they present something we might be able to learn from.
Terry, I don’t agree, but thanks for the other perspective.
I’m waiting for some idiot judge to grant leniency to someone who murders his parents on the basis that he is now an orphan…
It used to be a rather lame joke, now something like that is closer (in Canada) to reality tnan anyone could have imagined. Terrifying prospect…
Some other previously inconceivable judicial decisions by moronic judges:
Three or four years ago a judge in Quebec imposed a very light sentence on a man who sodomized a six-year old girl..said he was being lenient because the offender was “considerate’ enough to leave her virginity intact.
About the same period, a judge in BC gave out a conditional sentence to a man who violently raped a girl with the handle of a squash raquet. He justified the light sentence on ther basis that it wasn’t “really rape”…
It is awful to say it, but a small part of me kind of wishes some equally bad things happened to the kids of a few judges…maybe then they’d begin to understand…
Canada does seem to have a lot of people in the Justice System with double digit IQ’s; unfortunately these same people are paid very nicely by taxpayers. Its a Justice Industry that will keep on expanding with the southend of a northbound horse leading. Regards Jake
“In this case, however, the Judge applied the law and it is inappropiate and unfair to criticize him or her because you disagree with the law.”
Speaking as an alcoholic who will have been off the sauce for 15 years this coming Feb 15th, I’d just like to point out that every stupid, unfeeling, and malicious act I ever committed while under the influence was entirely my fault. Not getting drunk was an option. Getting help for my problem was an option (and I knew I had a problem by the time I was 14).
Inappropriate and unfair or not, I still think the judge is a @#$%ing idiot and should have his @$$ tossed out of the court room. Will some human rights tribunal fine me for hurting the judge’s feelings?
Thanks for the post, Sean.
BTW – when writing of decisions such as this, we refer to judges as “members of the gated community community.”
The “drunk’ defence had been around forever, the situation further exacerbated by the addition of the “drugged” defence, and various psychological “disorders”, my favorite the “dissociative disorder”.
They usually work, and the courts seem very deliberately naive. Perhaps it’s a way of keeping the system “revolving”.
“Canada does seem to have a lot of people in the Justice System with double digit IQ’s…”
If only that were the case, then, at least, there would be a reasonable explanation for some of the idiotic decisions.
I had a number of lawyers that I considered friends who subsequently became judges. Intelligent people, reasonable people (at least at the time). I have never, ever been able to figure out what exactly happened to some them after they were elevated to the bench.
One example, and this is after I left drug enforcement; I believe I was on homicide at the time. The RCMP arrested a notorious drug importer, and someone that I had been chasing (and had caught a few times) for years when I was still doing that type of work. He was a vicious, nasty guy who had become filthy rich by importing copious quantities of drugs, of all kinds, into Canada.
A judge, a friend of mine, presided over the trial. It was a slam-dunk case. He was convicted. All of the precedents called for a very lengthy prison term, especially considering the previous lengthy record of the accused. The judge ( I’ll call him Doug because, well, because that is his name) ignored the submissions of the Crown calling for a sentence of between 12 to 20 years) and sentenced the man to 18 months. This meant he would be out on day parole in 3 months. Needless to say, the druggie was led from the court, snickering – even HE thought the judge was an idiot..
A couple of weeks later I had occasion to have dinner with Doug, the judge. The issue of this case came up in conversation. I expressed my shock at the sentence, pointed out that this particular offender was one of the biggest dealers, at least in western Canada, that he had in the past actually put out contracts to kill police officers and that he had been responsible for killing several associates and/or competitors.
The response: “But Bruce, it was only marihuana”. My response: “But Doug, it was FOUR TONS of marihuana.”
It didn’t even register…at that point, I realized my former friend had somehow completely lost all sense of perspective…it was like witnessing the results of an alien abduction…
Bruce, I’m going to dedicate that comment to a post tomorrow.
Bruce and Mike the Greek and GYM and others. I wasn’t trying to defend the law but the decision of the Judge which I believed was in accordance with the law.
As a conservative and a lawyer I am always troubled when I see Judges (almost invariably liberals) depart from the law and impose their personal wishes in the decision making process.
So fidelity to the law is more important to me than the result in any particular case. There is a saying among lawyers that hard facts make bad law. In any event lower court judges have an obligation to follow the law. Those who disagree with the law have the option of working to change it-and this includes lower court Judges.
Only Supreme Court of Canada Judges are entitled to change the common law and even they are obliged to follow the statutory law. I have criticized the Supreme Court for reading rights into the Charter which Parliament specifically excluded.
Bruce, I will read the Hilton case and do further research and if you are right I will acknowledge same in this thread.
As to Bob – I assume you are Bob The Libertarian (and Bob the anti-liberationist) since, unlike me, you don’t use your real name and anyone can post as Bob – your accusation that I am a Toronto Liberal is hilarious. I am neither. I voted Liberal once in my life when I was 21 (in 1968) and didn’t yet appreciate the overwhelming liberal bias of the MSM.
I’ve written numerous posts in the past three weeks advocating the death penalty in the case of multiple muderers. No intelligent person who has read my posts here over the past three years would have any doubts about my conservative credentials. So what’s your problem Bob? Are you unintelligent or unfair or both?
Unlike you Bob, I’m more interested in being right than being right (or in your case a libertarian searching for a home.)
Terry, don’t get me wrong. I was not trying to slag you (and if I gave that impression I apologize). I simply disagree, respectfully, with your take on the decision. And if one reads the definition of “robbery” in the Criminal Code it clearly seems to fit within the ambit of s. 33.1(3).
Terry, I’m not sure whether or not I agree with your posts, but they are obviously well thought out. I’m looking forward to the results of any further research of yours on the Hilton case.
However, IMHO, Bruce, in his posts, is spot on that too many judges seem to become clueless when they are elevated to the bench (if they weren’t clueless already). They could be the subject of the following (undoubtedly apocrophyl) opening argument on appeal: “My Lords, this is an appeal of a decision by Mr Justice —- —–, but that is not the only grounds of appeal.”
The vast majority of judges are extremely competant. I have no doubt about that. However, the idiotic judicial decisions that we do hear about are ample justification for getting input from law enforcement officials on judicial elevations.
My theory on judges.
All the really good lawyers stay in private practice where they make a pile of money. These also tend to be the lawyers who are more conservatively inclined. Becoming a judge results in a drop in pay and less interesting work.
All the touchy-feely lawyers who want to make the world a better place are only too happy when they are offered a spot on the bench. They get a raise in pay and can put their theories to work. Unfortonately this is stock from which higher court judges are choosen.
Anyone in the legal system with any thoughts on this theory?
“So fidelity to the law is more important to me than the result in any particular case.”
What about fidelity to justice? From where I’m standing it looks like our “justice” system has been replaced by a “legal” system.
Fritz posted: “All the really good lawyers stay in private practice where they make a pile of money.”
Fritz, that is the “common wisdom”, but, at least in my experience, it is not the case. I have known a lot of lawyers over the years, and many of them have been at the very top of the heap with respect to professional recognition and high rates of hourly billings.
And I can count on one hand, with a few fingers left over, the lawyers who would refuse a judge-ship (sp).
Fact is, running a legal practice, especially a successful one, can be bloody hard work. And between the staff and maintaining an appropriate office, the overhead can be onerous…example, if you office rent is $15,000 a month….well, that’s a lot of impaired driving cases.
In my experience, at least, the dirty little secret in the legal profession is that getting an appointment as a judge, especially at the superior court level, is akin to winning the lottery.
First, great salary…upwards of $250,000 per year. Second, fantastic benefits, including a pension plan that would make even MPs green with envy. Third, decent hours, for the most part (I’m a confirmed workaholic, but the hours some of my lawyer friends put in make me look like a piker). Fourth (and not so much anymore) the fact that you are a judge engenders respect from the public.
Proof of the pudding…here in Vancouver, two of the best-know and highest-billing defence counsel recently accepting appointments to the bench. Both were at the very top of their profession
Bruce,
I took no offence. If I was wrong I am indebted to you for bringing that to my attention. It’s not like me to comment on a case without reading it so if I’m wrong I deserve it. (true conservatives take responsibility for their mistakes.)
And you were a complete gentleman about it so here’s to you Bruce. (Besides, the Habs won tonight and I’m doing well in my hockey pool so I’m in a good mood.)
Sean,
I’m glad you asked that question. Judges trying to do Justice, rather applying the law to the case in front of them is not something you or I want.
When Bertha Wilson tried to do Justice, i.e. what she considered Justice, in the Morgentaler case she looked at her legal lexicon and discovered that the words “Security of the Person’ -words so broad they can mean anything you want them to mean- actually mean: “The Right of a Woman To Have An Abortion For Whatever Reason and at Any Stage of Her Pregnancy.”
In the Halpern case, the Ontario Court of Appeal thought it would be unjust to deny homosexuals the “right” to marry.
In both cases, IMHO, Judges offered up their version of Justice rather than follow the law. Be careful what you ask for Sean.
Bruce,
I’m not to sure what to think of your story. You’re saying the judge ignored the Crown’s proposal of 12 to 20 YEARS, and sentenced this scum to 18 MONTHS! That’s a big difference of opinion… 20 YEARS and 18 MONTHS. And the deciding factor seems to be the fact it’s only POT.
So just to be clear now, the judge sentenced this man to 18 MONTHS for importing 4 TONS of POT? Not a first time offender, in fact a notorious drug dealer (scum). Importing no less.
Then, weeks later, you have dinner with the judge and this “came up in conversation”. What, after a little small talk… weather, hockey, red wine or white…
Sorry Bruce, but my bull s**t sensor is tingling. I’m sure as s**t I couldn’t do your job but I know this much. I would never look this judge in the eye again, let alone sit down with him.
Maybe I’m reading you wrong Bruce, but if Kate’s going to dedicate that story to a post in the future, then perhaps you should tighten up the loose ends.
“In both cases, IMHO, Judges offered up their version of Justice rather than follow the law. Be careful what you ask for Sean.”
Terry, I have never seen a more succinct post about the issue of “justice versus interpreting the law” than your 12.53 posting. Thanks for that.
When one talks to a judge about their responsibilities in interpreting the law, one will inevitably be told that the job of judges is to interpret the law in a manner that Parliament intended.
The Halpern case is a classic example of judges NOT following that maxim. If you recall the debates in Parliament, both in committee as well as in the House, the issue of “sexual equality” was a topic that was hotly debated. It was clear to any reader of Hansard that Parliament intended that equality based on sex was on the basis of gender, not orientation.
And below is a delicious quote from the then Minster of Justice, who was tasked with shepherding the bill that gave rise to the Constitution and the Charter through Parliament, which appeared on page one of the Globe & Mail on January 13, 1981:
The Government has not agreed to change the wording from ”everyone” to ”every person” and has not expanded non-discrimination rights to the handicapped or to sexual orientation. ”These should be left to be protected by ordinary human rights legislation where they can be defined, the qualifications spelled out and the measures for protective action specified by legislatures,” Mr. Chretien said.
In the Halpern case, all the judges had to do was to read the Hansard transcripts, and they would have clearly known what the intention of the legislators was when the Constitution Act was brought into law.
They apparently chose not to, and in their actions, they transmuted themselves from judges into social engineers.
Very sad.
Boots:
Re-read my post again. To provide more clarification:
He wasn’t charged with importing (which at the time still carried a minimum term of seven years). The seizure was made AFTER the drugs arrived in Canada, he was charged and convicted of possession for the purpose of trafficking (which had no minimum sentence but a maximum sentence of life).
He was caught in the process of digging up and attempting to transport (from a buried stash in a rural location) 500 lbs of Thai Sticks (marihauna from Thailand, which was very popular at the time).
There was clear evidence adduced that this was a portion of a total shipment of 4 tons that had been imported by him. That evidence was, however, insufficient to support a charge of importation in criminal court.
My conversation with the judge was not based strictly on the evidence introduced at trial; it was a conversation based on facts beyond which was introduced at trial (ie: the contract killings etc.) This conversation occurred AFTER the trial, when I was free to have a wide-ranging discussion about the case; obviously I could never have had such a discussion with the presiding judge while he was still seized with the case. However, in the course of the trial, evidence was introduced that clearly demonstrated that the accused was a big-time trafficker.
I can appreciate your sentiments, but in nearly 30 years of being on the job, if I had declined to speak to everyone who had figuratively kicked me in the teeth in the course of the justice system, I probably would have spent the last 10 years wrapped in a blanket in my closet.
On a happier note, the Crown appealed and the offender had his sentence increased to eight years.
The point of my story was not the resolution of the case, it was focused on what happens to *some* otherwise lucid people who get elevated to the bench.
all this means simply if you want to commit a serious felony, just do some experiments on your alcohol tolerance to find the precise dose that renders you intoxicated and still functional, THEN you have a defense at the ready since only YOU know the truth that in fact you were still sufficiently aware of your actions.
a cakewalk courtesy the judgey judges and their highly complex intricate and refined interpretations of law.
gawd save the nation and its citizens from this madness.
“Be careful what you ask for Sean.”
I’m asking for accountability. Having to stand for re-election every four years — especially on a regional basis — would go a long way towards reconnecting judges and the communities they serve.
It has been my experience that decisions which are made without fear of consequences tend to be bad ones.
Sean,
You’ve avoided my point. You say you want Justice and I’ve given you examples of cases where Judges, IMHO, handed down Justice rather than followed the law. Did you like the result in those cases?
Your solution of electing Judges will only make matters worse. I want Judges who follow the law and exercise wisdom and restraint in their decision making- as most Judges do most of the time. I do not want them doing what they think is popular.
In the Duke lacrosse case we saw what happened when the prosecutor did what was popular rather than what the law required of him.
In administering Justice there is usually some room for the exercise of discretion. A Judge must, of course try to do justice in every case, but in doing so he must follow the law (and Judges almost always do follow the law.)
Judges who administer Justice without following the law are dispensing with Justice.
“You’ve avoided my point. You say you want Justice and I’ve given you examples of cases where Judges, IMHO, handed down Justice rather than followed the law. Did you like the result in those cases?”
No. But I feel these results wouldn’t have happened if the judges were accountable to the public. I honestly believe they would step more carefully if losing their meal ticket and perks was at risk.
That’s MY point.
Sean
Both of the decisions I cited – Morgentaler and Halpern- were/are popular with the public.
So once again, I ask you. Do you want Judges to make decisions that impose the law or make decisions that impose popular opinion?
RE: In the Duke lacrosse case we saw what happened when the prosecutor did what was popular rather than what the law required of him.
Terry, Nifong is off the case and is looking at his own very serious legal problems within months of perpetrating what, IMHO, was a fraud. It usually takes years and years for Canadian victims to obtain justice, if they ever do. Many of them seem to be revictimized by our system over and over and over again. (I am thinking of the Rena Virk case and the Air India bombing).
Also, to B. Hoax Aware, I think you can safely add the Duke Lacrosse Case to your list of hoaxes.
Great discussion going on here. I’m watching the story of the father(Walker) who killed the drug dealer, and has been charge with second degree manslaughter.In light of this discussion, we have not heard the rest of the story for this man. Was he frustrated with the ‘justice’ system? Did this dealer have a long list of slaps on the wrist, and continue to wreak havoc in the community? He probably started with ‘just marijuana.’ Any problems that precede the father’s attack are conspicuously absent in the reports.Is someone protecting a ‘Judge Doug’?
Terry, “did what was popular rather than what the law required of him.” In the Morgentaler case if the popular thing would have been done this murderer would have swung at the end of a rope.
You see,
The justice is an industry like any other, basically a money making enterprise, except this is run and protected solely by lawyers and to certain extent by police – as in pretend war on drugs – and solely supported – 100% – by the tax paying everyone else. The only difference is that it sucks the wealth of the producers of it, instead of creating it, in exceedingly greater amounts. As someone once said follow the money.
This is my opinion.
Being drunk rules and those who disagree are boring.
If your a recovering alcoholic I call you a quitter.
and you know what they say, quitters never win.
dont be a quitter.
LOL
Terry, I’m genuinely intrigued to know why or how you believe the judge in this case could possibly have been doing their job, when the previously-cited statute plainly indicates that voluntary intoxication is NOT available as a defense to this particular criminal charge.
Terry is alleged to have said, “In this case, however, the Judge applied the law and it is inappropiate and unfair to criticize him or her because you disagree with the law.”
At first I thought this was the most incredibly assinine thing to say. Then I remembered that most sitting judges in Canada have been appointed by one Liberal government or another since the reign of Trudeau. Appointed…Liberal…justice….(the penultimate oxymoron)
So obviously Terry’s bang on. It’s not the poor judge’s fault. How could it be?
It’s actually MY fault! If I hadn’t voted Liberal once about 40 years ago his political buddies would never have had a chance to sprinkle pixie dust on him – or her.
Whatever happened to the idea that “justice must be seen to be done?” The sooner we can recall judges or at least vet them to ensure they’re not total party hacks, the better off Canada will be.
How about this for a bumper sticker: “Fixing the legal system – one judge at a time.”