Hearing of Regina v. Andre Murray, 18th August 2012.
After the confused hearing of 17th July 2012 Andre Murray ascertained that no Information had been laid in the Provincial Court in respect of the charge of Failure to Appear. The agenda for him at the hearing on 18th July was, therefore, to confirm that charge was not being prosecuted and was not before the Judge and also to request a Show-Cause hearing for the Information requesting a Criminal Code section 810 undertaking to stay away from a complainant against Andre Murray.
He asked the judge to confirm what Informations had been laid and she confirmed non had been laid for the charge of "Failure to Appear in Court 145 CCC." The question we all wanted an answer to is... if no charge was laid why was he arrested for that offence? It would appear it was just another arbitrary warrant and arrest but... who cares? Obviously not the police or courts in spite of our charter protections to be free of such acts by public officials.
Having examined the documentation before the court in respect of all charges, Assault, Breach of an Undertaking and Information requesting a Recognizance (the undertaking) it became apparent that justice would be best served by having the necessity for the undertaking heard before anything else, since, if there was evidence there was no need for an undertaking there would obviously be evidence there had been no assault and, therefore, there could have been no breach of an unnecessary undertaking.
That sounds simple and honest, right? The problem with that scenario of a fast route to justice is that it would allow Mr Murray to prove that:
the neighbour filed a false complaint and lied to the police, along with his wife and son,
the police arrested Mr Murray before concluding a diligent investigation
the police never made an effort to verify whether Mr Murray was even in the vicinity at the time of the alleged incident or if he had an alibi or witness
the Crown Prosecutors failed to follow their process as defined in the Attorney General's policies and accetped a case for prosecution in spite of the lack of evidence against the accused
the judge accepted Informations without satisfying the Court if there was any merit to the charges.
What unfolded in the hearing on 18th July 2012 was obvious teamwork against the defendant (who should not have ever been arrested or charged or prosecuted) between the Judge and the Crown to avoid admitting their negligence, which they did by preventing Mr Murray from any available options to prove the charges were without merit.
Under section 810 a judge is obligated to "hear" the reason argued against the need for an undertaking but she refused to and has not yet scheduled a Show-Cause hearing for Andre to prove there is no necessity and it is in fact a Charter violation to so restrict his liberty without giving him the chance to prove it is an not only unmerited but infringement of his rights and freedoms.
The judge and Crown counsel, Hilary Drain, both spoke over Mr Murray during the hearing and Justice Richards pretty much told him to shut up and leave to collect his disclosure. She lost her composure because she was wrong and being exposed in a courtroom full of observers that justice was taking a back seat because it is "my court room" - that was her response to being asked if her decisions were based in law or were simply her choice.
Every judge has a legislated and ethical duty to facilitate the most just, timely and cost effective resolution to every case before the Court, which is simply not happening in Fredericton Courts.
Mr Murray scored a lot of points at 18th July, not least because at the beginning of the Hearing Mary Jane Richards told him she "expected" he wanted an adjournment and he was not going to get one!!! So I was delighted when, at the end of the hearing, she offered him an adjournment because he had not received disclosure from the Crown on two of the charges, so he obviously needed time to prepare. Objections were made and duly noted by an obviously uncomfortable judge.
Just before the judge told him"you're finished!" in a loud unpleasant manner Andre had asked for a hearing to prove the invalidity of the matters and to prevent the waste of public funds on a prosecution with no merit. Justice Richards was not interested in such a hearing and is, obviously, quite used to the complete waste of public funds that our Provincial Courts apparently are.
The plea hearings are set for 9.30am on 15th August 2012. That will be another very interesting hearing indeed.
Sally Brooks
