Share
23 July 2020 17: 45
Updated at 18h03
Share
Trial Side-Normandeau: the fault of the UPAC, not of the Crown
Isabelle Mathieu
The Sun
Police officers of UPAC are suspected of having leaked information to journalists. These allegations of misconduct criminal have caused delays major in the cause of Nathalie Normandeau and his co-accused, is the Director of criminal and penal prosecutions (DPCP). But since the Crown has no control over the police, these delays cannot be attributed to it, ” he adds.
In a day and a half, the defence lawyers have multiplied the examples of what they consider to be laxity on the part of the public ministry. According to the defence, the early termination of the trial will only arrive after 57 months of proceedings. “It is 188% greater than the prescribed limit”, calculated Me Charles Levasseur, a lawyer of France Michaud, former vice-president at Roche, also accused of having participated in a fraudulent scheme funding policy.
Nobody can say with precision when the proceedings will end, ” adds the lawyer. “And why we don’t move forward? request Me Levasseur. Because the police decided to obstructing the course of justice and to behave like a criminal!”
Me Réjean Lavoie, the lawyer of Mario W. Martel, former president and chief executive officer at Roche, used the words “chaos” and “disorganization” to describe the many disclosures of evidence of the Crown and its lack of a clear plan that has hampered, he says, procedures.
The representatives of the Crown have begun to replicate in the middle of the afternoon on Thursday. The prosecutor of the Crown, I Richard Rougeau has assured that his team was “concerned about its constitutional obligations in relation to deadlines”. But, he adds, the responsibility of the DPCP “does not go so far as to assume any criminal acts committed by a parallel branch of the state or the police”.
All the time attributable to the leakage of police and the investigations arising from it are to be cut off of the period net, believes the Crown, because they are, in his eyes, a distinct element.
“The question is, is it that the prosecution has control over the police misconduct, which has generated delays”, calls Me Genevieve Gravel. And the answer, to the DPCP, it is not.
The situation would have been different, ” adds the lawyer, if the problem was a disclosure late or retention of evidence by police. “For the purposes of disclosure, the public ministry and the police are one, reminds Me of Gravel. We cannot discharge our responsibility by saying: “the investigator has not given me the report”.
The debate continues Friday for a fourth day.
