As always, we shall see

Share Button

In case you missed it, the sentencing of Father Jacques Faucher has been delayed/postponed  until 16 February 2017, three days after a previous scheduled court date on his breach charges:

16 February  2017:   2 pm, decision, Ottawa Ontario courthouse (161 Elgin St.)

It’s interesting that the judge opted to postpone his decision.  The chance that the decision was not prepared are virtually nil.  So, why put it on hold?

Is it possible that the judge was deeply disturbed by news that Faucher was lurking around the swimming pool and, without doubt, getting his perverse jollies by, at the very least, ogling at children?  I hope so, but not sure.

Is it possible that Faucher will enter a guilty plea to the breach charges and that then sentencing on the breach conviction  will be lumped in with the sex abuse sentencing?  Yes.  I think it’s possible.  Highly possible.

Unless of course Faucher can come up with some very plausible and rational explanation as to why he deliberately breached his release conditions?  Try as I might I can not think of any.

Will Father Faucher fare better or worse if sentencing on a breach charge is incorporated into the judge’s sentencing decision?  I have no idea. But, it doesn’t look too good does it?  An 80 year-old clerical molester violating his release conditions in such a blatant fashion?  Hanging around the children’s pool?  Watching.  Watching. Watching.

Ogling. Maybe even leering?

He may well fare worse if the breach is incorporated.   IF, for example  the judge was set to impart  a gentle “Tut. Tut, Bad bad boy!’  then the reality would be that all the hanging around/ogling at the pool  really doesn’t look too good and would not serve Faucher well, would it?

On the other hand, he may well fare better, IF, for example,  the judge was already committed, as they say, to throw the book at Father Faucher.  IF the latter were the case, then chances are high that the sentencing on a breach conviction would simply run concurrent.

And, of course, let’s not forget that Faucher is in jail right now.  Unless something has changed, he’s still behind bars.  He’s been there since he was arrested on the breach charge.   So, there will be a pat on the back or two for time served, and especially for time served prior to sentencing.

Anyway, and as always, we shall see.

Meanwhile the victims who have been waiting since March of last year for sentencing, and since February and March of 2013  to see justice done, wait. (Thankfully there was no motion to stay!)

Let’s pray that  justice is done and a just sentence befitting this man’s perverted crimes is rendered.

Please keep the victims in your prayers.

[Note the correction in the Ottawa Citizen.  The swimming pool is the Centre aquatique Paul-Pelletier in Quebec.  It is not in Ontario.  That explains why the Gatineau police were handling it.}

*****

In yesterday’s “Another ‘read it and weep'” post I expressed concern regarding the nearly  four years it will take to get the  Marcel Lalonde case in Cornwall to trial.  I linked to an article and said I would try to post it on Sylvia’s Site later.

Well, here it is, along with a few others which will bring us up to speed:

23 November 2016:  “Crown hasn’t proven pastor’s guilt, lawyer tells N.S. indecency trial” & related articles

In rounding those up it seemed proper to also dig up and post the nub of it all, the 2016 Supreme Court of Canada ruling which has set deadlines of 18 months for provincial and 30 months for superior court cases to get to trial from time charges were laid.  Here it is:

2016:  Barrett Richard Jordan v. Her Majesty the Queen  

I cannot tell a lie.  I have not yet read through the 130 pages. I did however glance through looking for specifics.  Here then is an excerpt from page 5:

At the heart of this new framework is a presumptive ceiling beyond which delay — from the charge to the actual or anticipated end of trial — is presumed to be unreasonable, unless exceptional circumstances justify it. The presumptive
ceiling is 18 months for cases tried in the provincial court, and 30 months for cases in the superior court (or cases tried in the provincial court after a preliminary inquiry).  Delay attributable to or waived by the defence does not count towards the presumptive ceiling.
Once the presumptive ceiling is exceeded, the burden is on the Crown to rebut the presumption of unreasonableness on the basis of exceptional circumstances.  If the Crown cannot do so, a stay will follow. Exceptional circumstances lie outside the Crown’s control in that (1) they are reasonably unforeseen or reasonably unavoidable, and (2) they cannot reasonably be remedied.
Note that “delay attributable to or waived by defence does not count towards the presumptive ceiling.”   Important.    However, those who followed the Cornwall sex abuse scandal and cover-up may well recall that delays attributable defence don’t always win the day.  If memory serves me correctly there was evidence that defence in the Father Chalres MacDonald case had verbally agreed to waive its right to a speedy trial, and I do believe that was back at the beginning, at the preliminary hearings held in Ottawa.  The sad thing here is that defence denied such agreement, and since there was no documentation attesting to any such agreement, when push came to shove to get “Charlie” off the hook,  well, defence had never waived Charlie’s right to a speedy trial.
It seems to me that those going through the criminal system these days would be well advised to ensure that any delays caused by defence are well documented, and that the Crown (or Assistant Crown) handling their case ensures that, if defence is dilly-dallying along,  a waiver is signed whereby defence clearly states that it will not at any time in the future file a motion for stay based on violation of Charter right to a speedy trial?
Further to that, if things are dragging along, as we know only too well that they oft times do, perhaps it would serve the complainant and justice  well to ask the Crown what and who is causing the delay, and, if it is the Crown, for an explanation which he/she believes will meet the courts’ demand for evidence of “exceptional circumstances” which lie outside the Crown’s control?
All of that aside, it seems to me that the only way to deal with cases which are up for a stay with claims that the accused’s right to speedy trial has been violated could be resolved more justly by
(1)  Laying charges against the defence lawyer and/or the Crown for, let’s say, something like  obstruction of justice?  If there isn’t a law to cover the offence, then amend the Criminal Code of Canada to include one tailor made for precisely such a scenario; and/or
(2)  Disbarring Crowns and defence lawyers who have allowed a case to be stayed;  (Perhaps, just to let them get the feeling of accountability, it would be apropos to implement a one-strike-you’re out warning? ); and
(3)  Hiring more Crowns; and
(4) Building more courthouses
The bottom line is that something truly is amiss in the land when lawyers and judges, with eyes wide open, and without any apparent concern for the safety and well-being of children, allow child molesters/”alleged” child molesters to “walk.’
This entry was posted in Accused or charged, Canada, Clerical sexual predators, Cornwall, Cornwall Public Inquiry, Scandal, Trials and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *