Jingsamichty

Maybe so.

But you can't deny I'm right.

Boy d

Substitute the I for an a......

Jingsamichty

You're very good at lobbing personal insults, I'll give you that.

Care to answer my original point in a more adult manner though, seeing as you obviously feel so strongly about it?

ann m

.

Boy d

Our structured interview is identical to peace.....we have been doing it for 15 years....What differs is the post structured interview if the subject chooses to say nothing or tells porkies. Hardly anything innovative to peace.....

We have section 7 here which amounts to a real right to say nothing with no suggestion of guilt.

The approach to miscarriages in the model is akin to throwing out the baby with th bath water.

We can't lie.....read r vs oinkle SCC. We have extremely strict rules surrounding statement and have to demonstrate no charter violations or violations of the confessions rule. Any statement must Be voluntary...... Cant create an oppressive environment, can't lie about evidence, have to assess operating mind, can't offer threats or promises, such as a lighter sentence....., no inducements.

Statement can't be lead and must be reliable. Will be assessed via a voir dire.

When we get a confession our job and crown begins, they are difficult to get in.....we have stricter rules with respect to youth statements.

Statements made by coaccussed can't be used as evidence against each other.....

This is not the USA, where all the negative data comes from

Boy d

Only where warranted....hardly a sensible point is it? You have made your position on British superiority very clear on here..

Some of us on here are married to Canadians and have Canadian children.....bit of tact might be in order.

Almost Canadian

Were you a police officer in the UK? If not, on what basis do you profess to know how the system works over there?

Some on this site have worked in both systems in both jurisdictions and can speak from actual experience. Voir dires exist in just about every common law jurisdiction in the world, it is not a uniquely Canadian thing.

Jingsamichty

"A bit of tact might be in order."

Says the guy who just called me a twit. And then a twat.

Boy d

Never said it was...Granted the peace modl works in the uk, but here not in it's present form. Do you know quite a bit about interviewing law in Canada then?

Almost Canadian

I have no idea what peace modl is and I know very little about interviewing law in Canada or in England and Wales. Not being a criminal lawyer, I don't have to.

I do know police officers that have worked in Canada and the UK and a number of ex-English and Australian criminal defence lawyers. Both police and lawyers comment upon how awful the Court process over here is, indicating that cross examination over here is nothing like a UK court would recognise and that alleging that a peace officer may be untruthful during cross examination is tantamount to ensuring the accused will be found guilty.

What is deemed to be an assault on a police officer in Canada, would, I suggest, expose a police officer alleging the same in the UK to ridicule, not just by defence counsel, but by the media and his/her fellow officers.

On the civil side, I know that suggested that a party is lying is particularly frowned upon and I have been chastised by a Court for simple asking, "I suggest you are mistaken ..." When holding a document in my hand that completely contradicts the evidence a witness has just given.

Unfortunately, I have to admit that I have never seen effective cross examination here in any Courtroom, it is simply not permitted. Not to the extent that someone used to frequenting the Courts in the UK would recognise anyway. "Stop abusing the witness ..." is all that is heard when it is approached.

Boy d

Why would one accuse a cop of lying? If there is evidence to support such a belief, then present it. If it is baseless then it should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

I have been challenged numbers times that I misheard something or contaminated evidence et ....I suggest...i commonly hear and for me it is a red flag that the lawyer has nowhere to go or may float out a double barreled question.

Most challenges here tend to be based around the charter, such as sec 8 which is unreasonable search and seizure.

Not sure I understand your comment about police assaults. Doesn't say much about other countries that view assaults against police as part of the job and not worth their time. that being said I've only charged on a couple of occasions.

Almost Canadian

Believe it or not, police lie. I won't bring up the tazering of a new immigrant again as you appear to be very sensitive to that. As you are aware, when a lawyer wishes to contradict evidence given by a witness, s/he needs to get the witness to confirm the evidence they gave previously:

Earlier you said .... when asked ...

Witness confirms what they said

Are you sure that that evidence is correct

Of course it is

Any you couldnt be incorrect

Of course not

I suggest to you that you are lying

Etc., etc. Then the contradictory evidence is given.

In Canada, suggesting someone is lying is deemed to be witness abuse.

I never said that assaults are not part of the job. You tell me if you would have bothered with this one:

The first criminal trial I witnessed here involved some drunken men sitting on a motorcycle that didnt belong to any of them so they could get a picture. The owner turned up and a brawl resulted.

The police were called and some 12 or so officers turned up. Lots of shouting resulted and a passerby, also drunk, got involved. As he walked towards a police officer the police officer held out his hand and ordered the guy to turn around. The guy didnt and walked into the officers oustretched hand. The officer charged him with assault on a police officer and he was convicted. IIRC He was 23 years old or so and the conviction meant that he would lose his job as a computer programmer as he was required to travel to the US frequently with his job. This was pleaded in mitigation. He accepted that his conduct was inappropriate but do you believe he deserved a conviction that screwed his work life up?

Apologies to the pedants, my computer wont allow me to type apostrophes

macadian

The terminology "I put it to you that etc" or, more commonly, "I would suggest to you etc " ..... as an intro to 'suggesting' a witness (particularly cops) in Scotland at least, are lying, was the norm as far as defence Lawyers were concerned. Prosecutors also used the terminology frequently in 'cross'. We (as in police officers) expected it...it became so usual that in my opinion, it was seen as standard practice, thereby diluting the desired 'suggestion' in anything other than Jury trials where the members of the jury never watched UK 'Court' drama's on tv. It is expected that the accused would have a different version of events etc, which his lawyer would bring out. As I say, it was expected and I rarely needed the 'protection of the court' to rebut such suggestions. Although some lawyers pushed the boundaries a tad, I was never accused of being a 'liar'. 'Mistaken' was the polite way of inferring that. The Justice System (or should I say, 'Legal System') is a bit of a game (adversarially speaking) , more about winning and loosing, as far as Prosecution/ Defence is concerned. Justice? Sometimes it wins out, other times not.

Next case M'Lord.......

As to what goes on in Canadian courts I have no knowledge, my time in blue (28 years) was all in Scotland.

Boy d

as for your first point, there are many other ways of introducing the evidence without the suggestion that the copper must be lying. It amounts to the same thing...."I put it to you...." is another common one. And I am familiar with cases where coppers have been challenged with lying on the stand (when they clearly had).

It would also require the accused taking the stand. yes police lie, but the vast majority don't.

as for your assault. If this is truly the way it took place, there was no intent and thus no offence. It sounded more like resist arrest, breach of the peace, drunk in public, mischief or maybe obstruction. Besides, we are so plauged with complaints of false arrest, excessive use of force etc these days, we tend to forward charges to protect ourselves. Then everything is properly documented and the matter brought to the crown's attention. Not to mention if he had been roughed up, the criticisim would have been if he had done something wrong he should have been charged.

Here in BC we may not lay a charge. We only recommend charges. It is crown that assess the public interest (your example would be none) and if there is a substantial likelihood of conviction (none with yours) before an information is laid.

If your story is true, i'd go out on a limb and say that this is not the norm and there are many sentencing alternatives to protect decent persons screwing up...such as suspended sentences or alternative measures etc....Personally, here in Vancouver such a matter would never see inside a court room.

We put up with that sort of crap on any given night. I guess some need to consider their career choices, but certainly not the norm at all. A night in the drunk tank would have sufficed.

Novocastrian

I don't have a dog in this race.. but why boy d are you being so defensive?

Are you maintaining that there's no gender discrimination and harassment within the RCMP? Because if so, I call bullshit.

Sorry. But so it is.