Anyone here pursue a "private prosection"?

[sleazure]

I think a private prosecution would be useful (and a caveat: I know nothing about them) in the case where, say, a police officer did something and it got kind of hushed up or dropped for some political reason. At the very least the atttmept would certainly get some press.

Are you talking about McHale vs Fantino? Interesting how that was settled. The crown invoked its right to take over the case, then it stayed the charge.

I imagine that the laws against malicious prosecution could be used against anybody who really tried to abuse this avenue. Would the plaintiff be on the hook for costs, as well?

 

[HOF]

You really needed to respond with that shit? Why even open the damn thread? Answer or go water your plants .

Yep, absolutely, it's an open forum, one of the great things about Canada, free speech, even if you don't like it. Are you goin' to pursue prosecuting me too. LMAO. Why don't you just call a lawyer and find out? You're on an anonymous review board, and you don't know if anyone here is really a lawyer or not. If it's worth pursuing then it would be worth a few hundred dollars to find out exactly what your options are if any. I can only speak for myself, and I don't mean to offend anyone, but I wouldn't take legal advice on a review board.

 

[thompo69]

Are you talking about McHale vs Fantino? Interesting how that was settled. The crown invoked its right to take over the case, then it stayed the charge.

I imagine that the laws against malicious prosecution could be used against anybody who really tried to abuse this avenue. Would the plaintiff be on the hook for costs, as well?

As it was an indictable offence, the Crown was obligated to take over the prosecution.

 

[thompo69]

You can only do it for non-indictable crimes, which are the most minor of crimes.

Wrong, so wrong.

 

[thompo69]

Huh? There's either summary offenses or indictable offenses. There is no hybrid.

Again, wrong. A hybrid offence is one that can be pursued on either indictment or summary conviction.

 

[Aardvark154]

Thoughts?

How about following up with Oagre @ #18 rather than getting testy.

 

[Aardvark154]

Yep, absolutely, it's an open forum, one of the great things about Canada, free speech, even if you don't like it. Are you goin' to pursue prosecuting me too. LMAO. Why don't you just call a lawyer and find out? You're on an anonymous review board, and you don't know if anyone here is really a lawyer or not. If it's worth pursuing then it would be worth a few hundred dollars to find out exactly what your options are if any. I can only speak for myself, and I don't mean to offend anyone, but I wouldn't take legal advice on a review board.

There is general legal comment, and there is legal advice. You will notice that most of us who know the secret handshake give the former rather than the latter - for which you should seek a face to face meeting in the real world.

 

[Bear669]

Hey Newbie-

You really needed to respond with that shit? Why even open the damn thread? Answer or go water your plants .

Arent you the obnoxious troll!? I do have personal experience, but I wouldnt share it with you.

We dont need you kind 'round here ahole.

 

[sleazure]

As it was an indictable offence, the Crown was obligated to take over the prosecution.

That's not how the Globe explained it. Do you know something they don't?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-but-activist-wont-cede-fight/article1455663/

Special prosecutor Milan Rupic told Justice of the Peace Daniel MacDonald that because the criminal charge is an indictable, or more serious, one, the province was permitted to take it over from Mr. McHale - and had decided to abandon it.

 

[demien2k5]

Oops, guess I won't be a lawyer!

You make a better "Fur Farmer" anyway HOF! Go with what you know, I always say! ;-p

 

[mandrill]

That's not how the Globe explained it. Do you know something they don't?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-but-activist-wont-cede-fight/article1455663/

Special prosecutor Milan Rupic told Justice of the Peace Daniel MacDonald that because the criminal charge is an indictable, or more serious, one, the province was permitted to take it over from Mr. McHale - and had decided to abandon it.

If it's an indictable offence, then it can not be continued as a private prosecution and the Crown MUST take it over. It's not a question of "permitted". The Crown then has unfettered discretion to proceed with or withdraw the charge, unless done for improper motives.

To the extent the Globe indicated that the Crown has an option whether to become involved in the charge or not, the reporter is in error. Basic Crim Pro 101.

 

[mandrill]

Are you talking about McHale vs Fantino? Interesting how that was settled. The crown invoked its right to take over the case, then it stayed the charge.

I imagine that the laws against malicious prosecution could be used against anybody who really tried to abuse this avenue. Would the plaintiff be on the hook for costs, as well?

The Crown has an option to take over a summary conviction offence. These are minor charges which can be privately prosecuted. A plaintiff can be on the hook for costs if the charge is not successful. And a civil lawsuit of malicious prosecution is potentially also available.

A "hybrid" offence is a charge which can be prosecuted either summarily or on indictment at the option of the prosecutor. My guess is that the Crown would have to get involved in this type of charge as it is more serious than a pure summary conviction offence. Don't quote me on this though.

 

[afterhours]

A plaintiff can be on the hook for costs if the charge is not successful.

cannot imagine this happening
If I err at that though, I wonder what would stop the plaintiff from adding the Crown as a party, as it should have interfered as a minister of justice

 

[mandrill]

cannot imagine this happening
If I err at that though, I wonder what would stop the plaintiff from adding the Crown as a party, as it should have interfered as a minister of justice

If the charge is found to be a waste of time or - even more egregiously - an attempt to harrass the accused, I think costs could be awarded very easily.

The Crown is under no legal OBLIGATION to intervene in a private prosecution of a summary conviction offence. As it does not have a legal obligation to intervene, it is not in breach of its duties if it does not. You have to prove that a defendant is in breach of a legal obligation before you can successfully sue it.

 

[afterhours]

If the charge is found to be a waste of time or - even more egregiously - an attempt to harrass the accused, I think costs could be awarded very easily.

theoretically yes, but these cases should be rare (waste of time will be each of them, but judges would not go as far as make such a finding and award costs, except for really malicious allegations)

I am aware of cases where people successfuly sued for malicious prosecution and recovered 100% of their lawyers fees (for defence of the original charge), so presumably the criminal court judge/JP had not addressed the issue of costs for some reason

 

[mandrill]

theoretically yes, but these cases should be rare (waste of time will be each of them, but judges would not go as far as make such a finding and award costs, except for really malicious allegations)

I am aware of cases where people successfuly sued for malicious prosecution and recovered 100% of their lawyers fees (for defence of the original charge), so presumably the criminal court judge/JP had not addressed the issue of costs for some reason

If the charge was that frivolous, the Crown would have stepped in and pulled it before trial in most cases. And the defence would just have accepted the withdrawal and not tried to embarrass the crown with a costs request.

 

[afterhours]

this is probably one of the most useless areas of the law from practice perspective
these people must make worst imaginable clients

 

[danzuchy]

Arent you the obnoxious troll!? I do have personal experience, but I wouldnt share it with you.

We dont need you kind 'round here ahole.

I'm sure you privately sued your mother's asshole. I don't want your advice. I like reality based advice.

Thanks to all who gave real advice and PM's.

 

[thompo69]

That's not how the Globe explained it. Do you know something they don't?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-but-activist-wont-cede-fight/article1455663/

Special prosecutor Milan Rupic told Justice of the Peace Daniel MacDonald that because the criminal charge is an indictable, or more serious, one, the province was permitted to take it over from Mr. McHale - and had decided to abandon it.

Apparently, I know quite a bit they don't.

From the link that has already been included and referred to numerous times in this thread:

"To avoid any abuse of the private prosecution process, the Criminal Code and the Crown Attorneys Act authorize Crown Counsel to supervise privately laid charges to ensure that such prosecutions are in the best interest of the administration of justice. If a summons or warrant is issued and the case involves an indictable offence, the Crown is required to take over the prosecution."

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/private_prosecution.asp

I wouldn't trust what you read in the papers. Often, their understanding of the law is equal to or worse than some of the people posting here.

 

[danzuchy]

Just let it go. You are wrong. He is right. There are four steps to a PP. If a JP issues a summons you can have a private lawyer proceed with the prosecution even if the Crown Refuses. Case closed. It's very costly and probably won't suceed but it is your right. There have been people in BC that have brought on PP on Crown's for obstruction of justice for refusing to proceed.

The bottom line is this: If you have valid proof and not some whack job, the PP can work. A JP can't look at a videotape and affidavits and say "No crime has been committed". If a crime was committed it was. Even if the cops don't want to prosecute you still can. It's your right as a citizen. And yes I did talk to a lawyer. Well worth the money.

Apparently, I know quite a bit they don't.

From the link that has already been included and referred to numerous times in this thread:

"To avoid any abuse of the private prosecution process, the Criminal Code and the Crown Attorneys Act authorize Crown Counsel to supervise privately laid charges to ensure that such prosecutions are in the best interest of the administration of justice. If a summons or warrant is issued and the case involves an indictable offence, the Crown is required to take over the prosecution."

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/private_prosecution.asp

I wouldn't trust what you read in the papers. Often, their understanding of the law is equal to or worse than some of the people posting here.