When I read the TSN article I think they’ll get acquitted….but I know there is more to it.
Report: Five members of Canada’s 2018 WJC team told to surrender to London Police
- Thread starter bazokajoe
- Start date
That's always been a question...closed and than reopened, why? London Police look likes shit on that and the Chief knows it, that's why he apologized profusely.
The conviction rate is 96%? Where? China? Or the Court of Public Opinion? Certainly not in any North American jurisdiction...
"Why did they not press charges," vs. "Why did Hockey Canada pay," is a confusion and conflation of too many aspects.
In any civil suit, there is the opportunity to have numerous defendants. You crashed into an old lady crossing the street? Great: she is likely suing you, and any other body she can in relation to you. As example, did you just leave a bar? Great, they are now a party [there's a reason most intelligent bar owners no longer distribute match books...]. You will probably counter sue her (for not paying attention to the Highway Traffic Act relating to pedestrians). Probably too your mechanic, your car manufacturer/brake manufacturer. Hell, probably too you may sue Cosco (not Costco) for failing to properly demark with fluorescent tags the little bag cart she had with her, because had they done so, she would have been more visible. Hockey Canada did not pay her for the players; they paid for the evaluated percentage of liability they had as Hockey Canada, a body under which those players were a part of, for countless factors: They got everyone together; it was their event; they had not put appropriate 'awareness' training into effect prior to; and down the train of "it's everyone else's fault" that civil litigation lends itself to.
As to why did they not criminally charge?
Well, one consideration plays out as follows:
The standard to which a criminal prosecution must rise is the highest standard in law in Canada - beyond all reasonable doubt. To lay a charge (generally, the police), one must only get to Reasonable and Probable Grounds, but it is also a fruitless exercise to lay a charge that you are without enough evidence to truly convict on, only for it to lament in the system and ultimately be stayed or withdrawn, while losing the ability for anything meaningful to happen due to R v Jordan timelines. - Remember too, in Canada, there is no criminal statute of limitations, save and except the fewest of offences that are strictly summary prosecutions (such as, given the nature of this board, s.174 Public Nudity [not to be confused with s.173 Public Act, which is hybrid]). Saying this, there was likely a Prosecutorial review at some point in time to advise as to RPC/RLC (depending on the province you are in) and guidance to merit in laying a charge (at that time).
Also: intriguing to see the London Police being a bit aggressive with their terminology. Some members of the Judiciary get a bit upset when one uses the term "Victim" prior to a conviction, preferring the term "Complainant" be used. But alas, the legislature saw fit to define "Victim" as follows in the Crim Code at s.2:
Means a person against whom an offence has been committed, or is alleged to have been committed, who has suffered, or is alleged to have suffered, physical or emotional harm, property damage or economic loss as the result of the commission or alleged commission of the offence and includes, for the purposes of sections 672.5, 722 and 745.63, a person who has suffered physical or emotional harm, property damage or economic loss as the result of the commission of an offence against any other person.
Two years less a day on 'weekend time' with a pass to keep playing?
That's not a legal sentence, considering "intermittent" sentences are only valid for 90 days gaol or less. - see s.732.
And a gang/group anything is a hugely aggravating circumstance, particularly in relation to sex assault. Add in the other side of the coin in that all of them are privileged in one fashion or another given their athletic careers; many judges are cognizant of hockey programs and the entitlement that most have in comparison to the populous en masse (think Max Verstappen and the majority of the F1 grid, vs. Lewis Hamilton).
*IF* Convicted (ergo, not after a plea and the large mitigation consideration that comes with) - and a very big if, because all it takes is one of these individuals to select a jury, and juries are unpredictable - I'd be more in the range of 4-6 years, but there are volumes of variables, particularly the level of participation/involvement of each. Everyone may be your brother, but that only applies until the rent comes due - and who knows how long until one of them offers evidence for a favourable plea bargain.
That's not a legal sentence, considering "intermittent" sentences are only valid for 90 days gaol or less. - see s.732.
And a gang/group anything is a hugely aggravating circumstance, particularly in relation to sex assault. Add in the other side of the coin in that all of them are privileged in one fashion or another given their athletic careers; many judges are cognizant of hockey programs and the entitlement that most have in comparison to the populous en masse (think Max Verstappen and the majority of the F1 grid, vs. Lewis Hamilton).
*IF* Convicted (ergo, not after a plea and the large mitigation consideration that comes with) - and a very big if, because all it takes is one of these individuals to select a jury, and juries are unpredictable - I'd be more in the range of 4-6 years, but there are volumes of variables, particularly the level of participation/involvement of each. Everyone may be your brother, but that only applies until the rent comes due - and who knows how long until one of them offers evidence for a favourable plea bargain.
It closed ten years ago...
Perhaps a quiet picturesque view and outdoor rink at the Grande Cache Institution? Though I believe the South Mackenzie Correctional Centre (I.e. Hay River Penitentiary) offers a longer playing season.
They declared it an historical site....But there are tours
Perfectly possible. You can get "house arrest" for up to 2 years less a day. The judge adds a clause that you can be absent from your home for medical and employment purposes. Done.
It's got nothing to do with an "intermittent sentence". You know even less about law than everything else you claim to be an "expert" on.
3 years-ish. But the offenders are young and that's a mitigating factor.
Ratting out your bros?.... Dunno. There's probably a huge "Bro Code" in the hockey world.
Does the Crown need the help?..... Maybe. Some friendly rat evidence along the lines of "She was sobbing and begging us to stop. And then we finished up and gave her a stiff margarita to drink and she agreed to do the video with us." would probably sink the other guys. Crown probably wants to avoid forcing the girl to testify about something so traumatic and humiliating and so forcing a plea would be attractive.
It was suggested that one would just serve weekends on two years, which is not possible. Thus, my response prevails on that point.
To serve a two year Conditional Sentence Order on a gang sex assault would not be in the interests of justice, and would bring the administration of such into disrepute - as reflected in the litany of jurisprudence on the subject of sex assault in general, let alone in a group sex assault context. Taking aside the Federal amendment to Conditional Sentence Order eligibility, arising after the Supreme Court refused to do such in Sharma, a sentence of such a nature in such a context would fail to be befitting of the considerations in Proulx, let alone of sex assault sentencing in general following Friesen (albeit that case specifically was in relation to sex assault against children, the principles on sentencing therein and in Arcand are still applicable).
I am an expert only in knowing that I am an expert in nothing, and will forever be a student of everything.
To serve a two year Conditional Sentence Order on a gang sex assault would not be in the interests of justice, and would bring the administration of such into disrepute - as reflected in the litany of jurisprudence on the subject of sex assault in general, let alone in a group sex assault context. Taking aside the Federal amendment to Conditional Sentence Order eligibility, arising after the Supreme Court refused to do such in Sharma, a sentence of such a nature in such a context would fail to be befitting of the considerations in Proulx, let alone of sex assault sentencing in general following Friesen (albeit that case specifically was in relation to sex assault against children, the principles on sentencing therein and in Arcand are still applicable).
I am an expert only in knowing that I am an expert in nothing, and will forever be a student of everything.
Just possibly the police chief compromised the case by calling the alleged victim the victim, a number of times. This guy seems lost.
If I remember correctly, all the players later walked and they fired the prosecutor or something like that.
Correct. Overwhelming evidence that she made up a bullshit story. The prosecutor was actually disbarred.
What I said was 3 years, subject to the fact that the accused were very young, no other criminal charges and a long intervening passage of time. But of course, you know best.
We'll see.
When you read this and the victim detailing the abuse you might have less sympathy towards the players.
theathletic.com
Police apologize to alleged victim in first comments since charging 5 players from 2018 Canada world junior team
Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Michael McLeod, Cal Foote and Dillon Dube have been charged with one count of sexual assault.
theathletic.com
I have a question and not sure if this was already asked.
I would think that any of the teams that these players currently play on will no longer want anything to do with them, guilty or not and regardless of the outcome (mostly for PR reasons), aren't their careers ruined anyway?
I would think that any of the teams that these players currently play on will no longer want anything to do with them, guilty or not and regardless of the outcome (mostly for PR reasons), aren't their careers ruined anyway?
