Given the largely polarized views of police work surrounding the protests and activism at the G20 summit in Toronto last year, it shouldn’t surprise many people that a significant court case linked to that policing is now the subject of some controversy.
A preliminary hearing began this week in Toronto for 17 people facing conspiracy charges in connection with mischief at the event. Among them is Guelph activist Mandy Hiscocks.
There has been some public criticism of aspects of the proceeding by some of the defendants and some of their supporters. One complaint is that it’s inappropriate for all the defendants to have their hearings at once. Another complaint has centred over the terms of the publication ban connected to the matters raised at the proceeding. Yet another, raised by Hiscocks this week, has been that security connected to the courthouse during the case has been heavy only to send a political message. She told media this week a substantial policing presence is on site only to suggest that there is a public threat associated with the case.
Delivering justice in such a complicated case is a difficult and expensive task.
It appears the justice system is investing considerable resources to deliver value in this case. Why wouldn’t it? This will be a case of huge interest locally, provincially, nationally, even internationally.
It’s challenging to conduct this hearing for all the defendants at once. On the other hand, rolling out the same case multiple times – even 17 times – would likely be a recipe for additional delay and public expense.
As for the complaint about the terms of the publication ban, they’re consistent with such orders typically in place relating to this aspect of criminal court cases. This is a procedure held to determine whether there is sufficient evidence for a defendant to stand trial on the charge or charges being faced. The facts and arguments raised at this stage will most likely entirely become public — just not immediately.
On the security assigned to the courthouse during this hearing, that’s a matter for police and court staff to determine. The court will be blind to security arrangements in assessing the case put before it.
We look forward to justice being well-served at this hearing and in this case. We also expect this process to be criticized no matter how this case unfolds legally and administratively.
Source: www.guelphmercury.com
A preliminary hearing began this week in Toronto for 17 people facing conspiracy charges in connection with mischief at the event. Among them is Guelph activist Mandy Hiscocks.
There has been some public criticism of aspects of the proceeding by some of the defendants and some of their supporters. One complaint is that it’s inappropriate for all the defendants to have their hearings at once. Another complaint has centred over the terms of the publication ban connected to the matters raised at the proceeding. Yet another, raised by Hiscocks this week, has been that security connected to the courthouse during the case has been heavy only to send a political message. She told media this week a substantial policing presence is on site only to suggest that there is a public threat associated with the case.
Delivering justice in such a complicated case is a difficult and expensive task.
It appears the justice system is investing considerable resources to deliver value in this case. Why wouldn’t it? This will be a case of huge interest locally, provincially, nationally, even internationally.
It’s challenging to conduct this hearing for all the defendants at once. On the other hand, rolling out the same case multiple times – even 17 times – would likely be a recipe for additional delay and public expense.
As for the complaint about the terms of the publication ban, they’re consistent with such orders typically in place relating to this aspect of criminal court cases. This is a procedure held to determine whether there is sufficient evidence for a defendant to stand trial on the charge or charges being faced. The facts and arguments raised at this stage will most likely entirely become public — just not immediately.
On the security assigned to the courthouse during this hearing, that’s a matter for police and court staff to determine. The court will be blind to security arrangements in assessing the case put before it.
We look forward to justice being well-served at this hearing and in this case. We also expect this process to be criticized no matter how this case unfolds legally and administratively.
Source: www.guelphmercury.com
No comments:
Post a Comment