Anyone here pursue a "private prosection"?
- Thread starter danzuchy
- Start date
- Status
You better hope that your lawyer spells better than you!
What kind of prosecution are you persuing?
What kind of prosecution are you persuing?
Why would you want to do that? You can only do it for non-indictable crimes, which are the most minor of crimes. Then you have to convince a JP to issue a summons. It's tough and it'll cost you a fortune just to see a guy be fined for what, $5000 max or a couple of days/weeks in jail?
No you can't . Most offences except the most serious are hybrids and can be pursued either way. Once again- anyone with PERSONAL experience? Not someone who wants to fluff his post count? Perhaps??
A private citizen can prosecute. I don't have any personal experience but I'll fluff my post count by posting this link.I thought the crown was the only one that could prosecute?
You could sue your neighbour, if his dog doo-dooed on your lawn. If you want to label that a prosecution in your mind, well, ok ...
http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/private_prosecution.asp
It's your lucky day, then. You just learned something new.I thought the crown was the only one that could prosecute?
Friends of mine once attempted a private prosecution for assault against some untouchable Chamber of Commerce type. They made their case but he got an absolute discharge.
What an idiot.I thought the crown was the only one that could prosecute?
You could sue your neighbour, if his dog doo-dooed on your lawn. If you want to label that a prosecution in your mind, well, ok ...
B
burt-oh-my!
I think a private prosecution would be useful (and a caveat: I know nothing about them) in the case where, say, a police officer did something and it got kind of hushed up or dropped for some political reason. At the very least the atttmept would certainly get some press.
"Private Prosecutions
Generally, allegations of criminal activity are reported to the police. After the police investigate, they may lay criminal charges. However, anyone who has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed an offence may lay an information in writing and under oath before a Justice of the Peace.
When the information is presented to the court by a private citizen, it is then referred to either a provincial court judge or a designated justice of the peace, who holds a special hearing. The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether a summons or warrant should be issued to compel the person to attend court and answer to the charge.
This hearing, held under s. 507.1 of the Criminal Code, takes place in private, without notice to the accused person. At the hearing, the judge or justice of the peace must hear and consider all of the allegations and available evidence.
The Crown must also receive a copy of the information, get notice of the hearing, and have an opportunity to attend. The Crown may attend at the hearing without being deemed to intervene in the proceedings.
If the judge or justice of the peace decides not to issue a summons or a warrant, then the information is deemed never to have been laid.
If the judge or justice of the peace issues a summons, the person will be served with a copy of the summons, which notifies them of the charge and compels them to attend court. If the judge or justice of the peace issues a warrant, the person will be arrested and brought before a justice.
To avoid any abuse of the private prosecution process, the Criminal Code and the Crown Attorneys Act authorize Crown Counsel to supervise privately laid charges to ensure that such prosecutions are in the best interest of the administration of justice. If a summons or warrant is issued and the case involves an indictable offence, the Crown is required to take over the prosecution. So, a private citizen's right to swear an information is always subject to the Crown's right to intervene and take over the prosecution.
If the Crown intervenes, the Crown will review the matter, as it does in every other criminal case, to determine whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and whether a prosecution is in the public interest. If so, the Crown will proceed with the prosecution. If not, the Crown is duty-bound to withdraw the charge."
From the link posted above.
I wonder what would happen if every SP who was abused did this? And then it got out that the crown rejected every single claim of the SP's? Hmmmm.... A powerful political statement methinks...
Generally, allegations of criminal activity are reported to the police. After the police investigate, they may lay criminal charges. However, anyone who has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed an offence may lay an information in writing and under oath before a Justice of the Peace.
When the information is presented to the court by a private citizen, it is then referred to either a provincial court judge or a designated justice of the peace, who holds a special hearing. The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether a summons or warrant should be issued to compel the person to attend court and answer to the charge.
This hearing, held under s. 507.1 of the Criminal Code, takes place in private, without notice to the accused person. At the hearing, the judge or justice of the peace must hear and consider all of the allegations and available evidence.
The Crown must also receive a copy of the information, get notice of the hearing, and have an opportunity to attend. The Crown may attend at the hearing without being deemed to intervene in the proceedings.
If the judge or justice of the peace decides not to issue a summons or a warrant, then the information is deemed never to have been laid.
If the judge or justice of the peace issues a summons, the person will be served with a copy of the summons, which notifies them of the charge and compels them to attend court. If the judge or justice of the peace issues a warrant, the person will be arrested and brought before a justice.
To avoid any abuse of the private prosecution process, the Criminal Code and the Crown Attorneys Act authorize Crown Counsel to supervise privately laid charges to ensure that such prosecutions are in the best interest of the administration of justice. If a summons or warrant is issued and the case involves an indictable offence, the Crown is required to take over the prosecution. So, a private citizen's right to swear an information is always subject to the Crown's right to intervene and take over the prosecution.
If the Crown intervenes, the Crown will review the matter, as it does in every other criminal case, to determine whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and whether a prosecution is in the public interest. If so, the Crown will proceed with the prosecution. If not, the Crown is duty-bound to withdraw the charge."
From the link posted above.
I wonder what would happen if every SP who was abused did this? And then it got out that the crown rejected every single claim of the SP's? Hmmmm.... A powerful political statement methinks...
you can get some good advice here....but this kind of talk will only get people pissed
1. Yes, it can be done.
2. The participants in the justice system see it as a nuisance and will use every means at their disposal to get rid of the case. And as wet_suit_one said, they have the power to do it.
3. You don't know how to prosecute a case and will fuck it up.
4. At the end of the day, even if you win (unlikely), you will get nothing out of it. The defendant will be sentenced, but gaol will be unlikely. If you actually want something for yourself rather than entertainment or the joy of being a pest, sue the guy rather than using the criminal court process.
2. The participants in the justice system see it as a nuisance and will use every means at their disposal to get rid of the case. And as wet_suit_one said, they have the power to do it.
3. You don't know how to prosecute a case and will fuck it up.
4. At the end of the day, even if you win (unlikely), you will get nothing out of it. The defendant will be sentenced, but gaol will be unlikely. If you actually want something for yourself rather than entertainment or the joy of being a pest, sue the guy rather than using the criminal court process.
- Status
