Boy d

perhaps. But are they duty bound to act and if they didn't would it amount to criminal neg:

219. Criminal negligence

219. (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

Police are required to act. They are legally bound to intervene. That is they are not supposed to run away, or choose to not get involved.

Boy d

the presumption only applies during trial. So the notion of innocent till proven guilty, at least in my mind, appears absolute, which it isn't. Both are poorly worded really.

Alan2005

He's innocent of the crime of attempted murder though.

You can't go around saying that "not guilty" means they probably did it, but got away with it. Not guilty means that they didn't do what they were accused of - i.e. they are innocent of it.

Boy d

The courts aren't saying he got away with but probably did it, or for that matter that he did n't do it, only that he was not proved to have done it. There's a case that takes this notion as to why you cant have 3 findings (guilty, not guilty or innocent), that is if one person were found innocent vs another found not guilty it might create a belief in just what you are saying. Ie would not guilty create a belief of he got away with but probably did it vs innocent: that is he didn't do it?

The courts are not concerned with finding someone innocent. Only in finding someone guilty (not innocent) or not guilty (case not proved beyond a doubt).


I| understand where you are coming from. I guess it depends on what your meaning of innocent is and more accurately what your meaning of not guilty is. If you choose to believe that not guilty means innocent (which it certainly can do) then fair enough. But if one takes not guilty as meaning the case was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt then it's different all together.

A judge would be very careful to not say innocent of attempt murder but guilty of assault weapon.

I;m really only trying to offer what the courts say and not debate what the true meaning ought to be. As i say the presumption only exists during trial.

I have agreed it's daft and really only down to semantics...but AC's a lawyer he ought to know better.

i now have a headache. I should have become a fireman.

Alan2005

I guess this is where presumed innocent comes in.

I do actually think this is a bit angels and pinheads. If a court finds you not guilty, then for all practical purposes you are innocent. It might technically mean that the state hasn't proved it's case, but the effect on the person walking away free is the same. Everyone else is going to draw their own conclusions on whether they really did it or not regardless.

Edit: In the case of blakelocks killers court case I know nothing about it other than the person in prison was acquitted. Still, I like to think that murderers in the UK aren't just set free so there must have been some doubts about the evidence. As bad as that crime is - it's still better for the killer to escape punishment than it is to lock somebody up that didn't do it.

Boy d

the law is not alway sensibe nor straight forward. I agree with you really. But the debate was with respect to the courts interpretation of what it means. And not guilty does not legally mean innocent. We simply tend to infer innocence, rightly or wrongly.

anyway google is everyone friend....im done.

Boy d

Crickets?

i rest my case your honour

maybe you should hang with james morton, past president of the Ontario bar: Not guilty" does not mean innocent. It means "not proven beyond reasonable doubt".

Boy d

i shall take your lack or response as vindication that you know **** all about criminal matters....best stick to family law

If you would like me to further set you straight.....please ask. As for the presumption, would you like to know anything about the stat presumption, section 1 and r vs Dunn?

Or how about Garafoli trials, vetrovich witnesses and the application of the confessions rule post Oickle?

Now don't get me wrong, i'm no lawyer, but I do know what is relevant to the exectution of my duties.

Anyhow, very, very worring you call yourself a lawyer. But then your'e only a family lawyer.

dbd33

Is there an heirarchy among lawyers, some sort of ranking system? If so, is an immigration lawyer better than, say, a mergers and acquisitions lawyer?

Almost Canadian

I chose not to respond as I believe you are spouting nonsense.

Please provide me any legal authority that indicates that, if an accused is acquitted, s/he is anything other than innocent of the crimes alleged.

Please provide me with any legal authority that suggests that, in a criminal trial, anyone other than the accused is on trial.

On the assumption that you may refer to cases, please ensure that you quote the ratio, as opposed to the obiter.

I don't wish to know anything about the presumption. I know all I need to know.

I will leave the character assassinations to you although, from your posts on here, it would appear that you fall someway short of being competent at that too.

caretaker

[QUOTE=Boy d;10303375]Anyhow, very, very worring you call yourself a lawyer. But then your'e only a family lawyer

I think you're wearing him down.

Canuck74

Hey copper! It's worrying not worring.

[QUOTE=caretaker;10303458]

R I C H

Is being a smug cop more aspirational?

Alan2005

Look - fancy lawyer words. I googled obiter and I still don't know what it means

Almost Canadian

Obiter dictum - the part of the judgment that is not binding but which, essentially, represents "comments" made by the judge.

Ratio decidendi

Obiter dictum