Six, second-degree murder convictions. Life without parole for 25-years, might as well be 250-years. Pickton never to see daylight as a free man again. Mission accomplished - or at least it should have been.
Crown counsel, who got everything they could have hoped for in the year-long trial of Robert Pickton, are now asking the BC Court of Appeal to set it all aside. Why? They want to hold a new trial, on all 26-murder counts.
The Crown, perhaps snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory, is now going to argue that - way, way back when - the trial judge erred by severing the six counts that were tried from the original 26. The Crown is also appealing claiming the trial judge erred in failing to instruct the jury that dismembering and disposing of the victims' remains was relevant to the issue of planning and deliberation.
Talk about a difference without a distinction and a high-risk one at that. Setting aside those verdicts now means beginning all over again and the idea of running a 26-count murder trial is nothing short of incredible. These mega-trials haven't fared very well in the history of Canadian criminal law. They're a nightmare to manage and increase the possibility of a "justice delayed" argument for acquittal under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I expect, and hope, that the Court of Appeal will give short shrift to the Crown's request to set aside the convictions. (Shrift by the way is the interval before execution given to the condemned to seek confession and absolution).
If the Crown wants to proceed with the remaining 20-counts, all well and good I suppose. In that case it may be helpful to have an appellate ruling on whether dismembering and disposing of the victims' remains did actually go to premeditation.
4 comments:
I totally agree. Im no expert in criminal law but this seems to me to be a risky gambit. If the COA order a new trial and Pickton is acquitted on all charges he would walk free. Best not to risk that over a practically irrelevant distinction between first and second degree murder.
It does almost seem as though there's something personal in the Crown's actions. Pocket the six and go on from there. BTW, good luck with your articles.
Pardon my language, but that is absolutely fucking ridiculous! Instead of throwing that 100 million in the toilet why not put into programs to help women get off the streets, instead of into lawyers pockets, not to mention the case backlog where other criminals will simmply be released if their cases can't be heard in a reasonable amount of time.
Great points, anon. You're completely right - this exercise to retry these six cases in conjunction with the remaining 20 is squandering very limited resources on an enormous scale all for the hope of getting exactly the same sentence. I forget what the estimate was for the trial but I think it came in well over $7-million. What the Crown wants would at least double, quite possibly triple that. I doubt the remaining cases would be as easy to prosecute as the first six - evidence problems, witnesses, etc. The whole thing is nonsense.
Post a Comment