Anyone here pursue a "private prosection"?

[thompo69]

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.

I'm actually not wrong. In an indictable offence the Crown must take over the prosecution, and in any case the Crown may choose to take it over. Period. Once they do, it is out of your hands, and they may choose not to proceed with the prosecution, stopping it dead in its tracks. Please see the Fantino case.

 

[danzuchy]

I'm actually not wrong. In an indictable offence the Crown must take over the prosecution, and in any case the Crown may choose to take it over. Period. Once they do, it is out of your hands, and they may choose not to proceed with the prosecution, stopping it dead in its tracks. Please see the Fantino case.

The attorney general stepped in with Fantino. Most crimes can go ahead summary/indic.

The ones taht are indit. only are the most serious and a PP wouldn't be needed and if it is someone messed up. And yes, you are wrong.

 

[thompo69]

The attorney general stepped in with Fantino. Most crimes can go ahead summary/indic.

The ones taht are indit. only are the most serious and a PP wouldn't be needed and if it is someone messed up. And yes, you are wrong.

Are you really this thick? The Crown stepped in because it was an indictable offence. They are required to take over the prosecution in a case of an indictable offence. They can choose to take on the prosecution of a summary conviction offence. Either way, once they take it over, it is up to them how, or if, the prosecution proceeds.

 

[danzuchy]

Are you really this thick? The Crown stepped in because it was an indictable offence. They are required to take over the prosecution in a case of an indictable offence. They can choose to take on the prosecution of a summary conviction offence. Either way, once they take it over, it is up to them how, or if, the prosecution proceeds.

No you are WRONG. Wrong. You just can't let it drop.

From the AG webpage:
You have the right to conduct your own prosecution, or to have a lawyer do it.

 

[thompo69]

No you are WRONG. Wrong. You just can't let it drop.

From the AG webpage:
You have the right to conduct your own prosecution, or to have a lawyer do it.

You're right. I can't let misinformation go. From the AG's page:

"So, a private citizen's right to swear an information is always subject to the Crown's right to intervene and take over the prosecution."

Thanks for playing...

 

[fuji]

No you are WRONG. Wrong. You just can't let it drop.

From the AG webpage:
You have the right to conduct your own prosecution, or to have a lawyer do it.

There are limits on that. You can conduct your own prosecution, but you must accept that the crown can take over the case if they choose to and the crown must take over an indictable case. I don't know whether that means they have to take over a summary case that could have been indictable.

 

[afterhours]

There are limits on that. You can conduct your own prosecution, but you must accept that the crown can take over the case if they choose to and the crown must take over an indictable case. I don't know whether that means they have to take over a summary case that could have been indictable.

almost anything can be indictable, except very few offences
wy do you people even give a shit about private prosecutions generally, I am at a loss
if a matter is worth shit, police would prosecute it; and conversely, if police refuses to prosecute it, it likely ain't worth shit

 

[danzuchy]

You're right. I can't let misinformation go. From the AG's page:

"So, a private citizen's right to swear an information is always subject to the Crown's right to intervene and take over the prosecution."

Thanks for playing...

No problem. Next time you need an ass kicking just PM me.

 

[thompo69]

No problem. Next time you need an ass kicking just PM me.

And you still don't get it...

 

[danzuchy]

almost anything can be indictable, except very few offences
wy do you people even give a shit about private prosecutions generally, I am at a loss
if a matter is worth shit, police would prosecute it; and conversely, if police refuses to prosecute it, it likely ain't worth shit

Right another goody two shoes never leave my home 'man". Like the cops always know best right? I guess nbetween their bar drinking and sucking back stolen pills thjey have the best judgement , right?

 

[danzuchy]

And you still don't get it...

I said Pm. DOn't clutter the board.

 

[thompo69]

I said Pm. DOn't clutter the board.

Fair enough. I'll leave that to you and your crap.

 

[fuji]

No problem. Next time you need an ass kicking just PM me.

You'd gain a bit more respect if you'd admit you were wrong on this point.

 

[danzuchy]

You'd gain a bit more respect if you'd admit you were wrong on this point.

From who? A bunch a guys that need to pay to get laid? LMAO (like the escorts do).

I'm not wrong. I am right.

 

[syn]

From who? A bunch a guys that need to pay to get laid? LMAO (like the escorts do).

I'm not wrong. I am right.

it sounds like someone needs a time out ... or a release of some sort to get rid of the bitterness ...

why post on this board soliciting information if you are so quick to dismiss?

syn