I did a quick blog last evening re the charges against Bishop Raymond Lahey. As I noted then, a court date has been set for Case management Court, that date being Friday 12 February 2010 at 9 am (Ottawa).
A little more …
Yesterday’s hearing was in the room designated for remands. Remand court starts at 08:30 and runs until the cases are finished. It can wind on all day.
Thankfully a representative from the Crown’s office and one from Lahey’s defence showed up around 8:50.
The crown made a request for Case Management Court this Friday. The date was set. Then someone questioned who the presiding judge of the day would be. The date was re-scheduled to the following Friday (12 Feb) , courtroom #8 at 9 am. I don’t know thaat there was anything untoward in the change of date – I’m not sure but it seemed to relate to having someone qualified to deal with the case. (The acoustics in the courtroom are terrible and it’s very difficult to catch what’s going on.)
Anyway, that was essentially it. Swish bang. Remand court is like a sausage factory.
Also, as I said previously, I talked ever so briefly to both the Crown and defence outside the courtroom.
At the end of the day my understanding from the Crown is that defence has “some issues” which need to be sorted out. His words I believe were: “The defence has some issues on setting this down” and that those matters were not going to be discussed in open court yesterday morning. Those issues will presumably be addressed in some fashion at the Case Management Court on the 12th. The court is open to the public.
I asked the Crown about the judicial pre-trial of the 26th. As anticipated, mums the word.
All fair enough.
Where things get puzzling for me is on the use of the word “continuance.”
You may recall that after attending court 13 January 2010 I blogged that 26 Janaury 2010 was booked for judicial pre-trial and 03 February 2010 was a “continuance.” I actually checked with the lawyer representing Lahey to ensure I got the dates right AND to ensure I understood correctly that the word was “continuance.” It was foreign to me.
I later blogged that I was puzzled by this “continuance” . I looked it up to see what I could learn and it just made no sense – plus the media was reporting that a plea was anticipated on the 3rd, and there not a mention of a “continuance.” I failed to understand how there could on one hand be a request for postponement and on the other anticipation of a plea.
In addition, it made no sense to me that a continuance would be scheduled beforethe judicial pre-trial had transpired. How would they know that they needed to postpone if they didn’t know what would transpire in chambers? But, I am a layman and well aware that I am less than familiar with a lot of legal jargon. I finally decided that things would fall into place and start to make sense as they unfold.
Not so. At least, not yet.
Yesterday I asked the lawyer representing Lahey for the day about the continuance (sorry – didn’t get names). He was the same lawyer who was in court on the 13th. Well, he denied the word had ever been used, or that yesterday had been booked as a “continuance.” I assured him I did not make it up since I had never heard the word before, but, he insisted that he did not use the word and the word had never been used and that yesterday had not been scheduled as a continuance.
Figure that one out 🙂 I suppose to say I am more puzzled than ever now is putting it mildly. I am wondering if yesterday was a little like a continuance without it being a continuance? The long and short is things are dragging on a snail’s pace, and the clock is ticking,.
Finally, I note that media reports indicate that Lahey’s next court date is 09 April 2010. I heard no mention of the date in court but gather it must be fact?
So, according to media reports the next court date is April 9th . Easter Friday. What is supposed to be happening then? Not a clue. I will certainly try to find out more on the 12th and report back. Meanwhile the clock ticks.
Now, a few new postings and quick comments:.
(1) Lahey 03 February 2010: “Bishop Lahey child porn hearing postponed” with comments, and 04 February 2010: “Lahey child porn case to resume April 9”
(2) 04 February 2010: Cornwall’s Final Inquiry Tab: $1,738,981.03
Boo hoo hoo!
As I have said before I do believe that the Cornwall Police Service pulled a fast one here. If, as it seems it should have, the Cornwall Police Service had applied for funding at the start of the inquiry it probably would have received funding. And had CPS received funding it would, alas, have been tethered by the inquiry imposed caps on hourly rates for lawyers and so on.
Do you suppose CPS didn’t know that?
I don’t believe CPS wanted to be tethered. I think it pulled a fast one. As far as I’m concerned it pulled a fast one, and, as far as I am concerned the office of the AG was complicit. It was, after all, the office of the AG which came to the rescue when the wailing first began and funded the colossal CPS inquiry costs through he back door.
Methinks things at the Weave Shed might have played out a little differently if CPS had had its wings clipped and been obliged to follow the rules for parties with funding.
(3) 04 February 2010: “Charge dropped against OPP boss” and other articles re Fantino charge
Same old same old.
What is it? One Big Happy Family? or friends in high places? or two tiered justice?
No matter, Fantino is indeed as snug as a bug in the proverbial rug. He can still sleep tight.
(4) Ontario Court of Justice: Her Majesty the Queen v, Gary William McHale: Excerpt of proceedings on preliminary inquiry before the Honourable Justice B. Zabel on November 25, 2008 at Hamilton, Ontario
I posted this because it was linked into the previous article. An interesting read. Looks like McHale did a darn good job in court.
Final note here: Never ever forget now, Commissioner Julian Fantino never ever ever threatened anyone 🙂
Enough for now,