|
I have linked
the references to Judge Baynton's decision to the corresponding
paragraphs. Just roll your mouse over the cited numbers and you
will be taken to the section in context. Use your back button
to return --Sheila Steele
appended affidavits: Marilyn Hedlund | Murray
Brown | See also
Don McKillop |
Quennell sermonette |
Government
appeal of Judge Baynton's findings of malice
In the Court of Appeal for
Saskatchewan
Memorandum of proposed intervenor,
Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy A-G, submitted December
9, 2004
1. The proposed intervenor,
the Attorney General of Saskatchewan seeks leave of the court
to intervene in this appeal by way of a Factum and, subject to
the approval of the court, at the hearing of the appeal oral
argument, respecting the issues specifically identified below.
2. The Attorney General acknowledges
that as intervenor, he is restricted to addressing issues whih
the parties have put before the court.
3. The Attorney General also
acknowledges that it is not an appropriate role for an intervenor
to simply repeat submissions that havebeen made on behalf of
the parties.
4. However the Attorney General
submits that a reading of the judgment under appeal and the affidavits
of Marilyn Hedlund and Donald Murray Brown filed in support of
this application make clear that the appeal raises important
issues of public interest with ramifications beyond the individual
interests of the litigants.
5. The Attorney General therefore
submits that this is an appropriate instance for the court to
grant him intervenor status in order that he may, through counsel,
by the filing of the Factum and on the hearing of this appeal
to seek to ensure that those issues identified below are fully
argued to the court.
6. With respect to the appeal
on behald of Matthew Miazga, the Attorney General seeks leave
to address the court on the following issues:
a) did the trial judge err
in law in writing at paragraph 315:
"Proceeding without reasonable
and probable cause is contrary to the law and demands a credible
explanation, failing which the inferece of malice can be drawn"?
b) did the trial judge err
in law in writing at paragraph 381 that
the high profile of the prosecution, the large number of accused,
the potential for disastrous consequences on those charged if
they were later found to be innocent and the "glaring absence
of any reasonable and probable cause to lay and prosecute the
charges" constituted extraordinary circumstances giving
rise to a "strong presumption of malice"?
c) did the trial judge err
in law in concluding at paragraph 141 that
the fact that the prosecutor did not view the available video
tapes of the police interviews with the child complainants at
the time of advising the investigating officer with respect to
the laying of the charges constituted a strong indication of
malice on the part of the prosecutor?
d) did the trial judge err
in law in granting judgment against the prosecutor having written
at paragraph 6:
"It
appears that during the investigation and prosecution of the
case, the defendants focused on the minute detail and never stood
back to view the case in full perspective. Had any of them done
so, I would not be giving judgment in this case."
e) did the trial judge err
in concluding at paragraph 272 that
the prosecutors calling witnesses during the criminal proceedings
to offer testimony about their opinion that the child complainant
exhibited extreme dysfunction to be expected from children who
had been sexually abused and that such children of the ages of
the complainants should be expected to have inconsistencies in
their perceptions and in their allegations and testimony constitutes
an indication of prosecutorial malice?
f) did the trial judge err
in concluding at paragraph 405 that
the prosecutor's lack of any expression of regret or remorse
for what was done to the Plaintiffs, in the circumstances described
in the judgment, "is a strong indicator of malice"?
g) did the trial judge err
in law in concluding in paragraph 390 that
the fact that the police decided not to lay charges against all
of the persons identified by the child complainants as perpetrators
of assaults constituted an indication of malice on the part of
the prosecutor?
h) did the trial judge err
in law at paragraphs 421-444 by
disregarding the Defendants' evidence described there which was
specifically offered by the Defendant prosecutor as a listing
of events which transpired during his prosecution of the Plaintiffs,
which were relevant to his issue of whether to continue that
prosecution, and which on his testimony he saw as factors supporting
the decision to which he was otherwise inclined to continue with
that prosecution?
i) did the trial judge err
in concluding at paragraph 176 in
the absence of any evidence on the point that the Defendant prosecutor
played some role in deciding how long and in which conditions
the Plaintiffs would be held in remand custody?
j) did the trial judge err
in law at paragraph 271 in
concluding that the manner in which the Defendant prosecutor
presented medical evidence to the court could constitute an indication
of malice?
k) did the trial judge err
in law at paragraph 414 in
concluding that the Defendant Prosecutor's objections at the
criminal trial of persons other than the Plaintiffs could constitute
an indication of malice relevant to this action?
l) did the trial judge err
in finding at paragraph 414 in the absence of any evidence to support
the conclusion, that the Defendant Prosecutor objected during
the Plaintiff's preliminary inquiry and during the criminal trial
in Ross, Ross and White to counsel for the accused entering
into evidence the videotapes of the police interviews of the
child complainants?
m) did the trial judge err
in concluding at paragraph 419, in
the absence of any evidence to support the conclusion, that the
prosecutor likely bowed to pressure from his superiors, Social
Services personnel and workers, Dueck, his child sexual council
abuse peers and the prevailing attitude of the day . . ."?
7. With respect to the appeal
of Carol Bunko-Ruys, the Attorney General seeks leave as intervenor
to offer submissions respecting the following issues:
a) did the trial judge err in law in concluding beginning at
paragraph
334, that the Defendant therapist was instrumental in initiating
the criminal proceedings against the Plaintiffs given the uncontradicted
evidence before him that:
1) she did not swear any informations or conduct any prosecutions,
ii) she did not advise, recommend, or urge to anyone whether
charges should be laid or prosecutions continued and if so against
whom;
iii) she made clear throughout that while she believed the child
complainants had been sexually abused, she could not determine
who the perpetrator or perpetrators were;
iv) all of the disclosures of abuse that the Ross children made
to the therapist, the police and eventually the criminal courts
had first been made to the Thompson foster parents,
v) the therapist's participation in the police interviews of
the child complainants were videotaped in their entirety and
available throughout to the police and prosecutors as they made
their decisions, and
vi) as they made their decisions respecting the charging and
prosecuting of the Plaintiffs, the police and prosecutors knew
that the Ross child complainants had sometimes lied.
8. The proposed intervenor
has not yet prepared a Factum in this matter at this point because
the Appeal Book is not yet available and the specific references
to the trial evidence are therefore not yet available for the
Fractum. If the Appeal Book becomes available before the hearing
of this application, the proposed intervenor will seek leave
of the court to file a draft Factum in support of this application.
Signed in Regina, December
9, 2004 by Don McKillop, solicitor for the Deputy Attorney General
and Deputy Minister of Justice, Doug Moen.
|
 Truth can never be
told so as to be understood, and not be believ'd. William Blake, The Proverbs of Hell
Truth suppress'd, whether
by courts or crooks, will find an avenue to be told. Sheila Steele, injusticebusters.com
If you hold the mouth
of Truth, It will burst out its rib-cage. Somali proverb
Publisher : Sheila
Steele
Got something
to say about this or any other stories on this site? Go to injusticebustersblog Participate!
- injusticebusters
court advice :
- How to walk yourself through the justice system
-
- Why you should dump your preliminary hearing (written July 1998 and still valid)
-
- Sermonette:
The
Naked Truth -- (You
will find links to many more sermonettes in the sidebar on this
page
Another target
of Dueck's malice: : Wilf Hathway
Our activism
contributed greatly to the good vibes which happened around the
civil trial.
Index
to the stories on this website
This is not
regularly updated so if you are looking for a particular story
and you have a name or keyword, please use the site search engine(at
the bottom of the page) which IS regularly updated
Index to Saskatoon Police stories
This is a pretty good scrapbook
for the 1998-2002 period.
Inquiry into the malicious prosecution of David
Milgaard untanling 36 years of Saskatchewan police and Crown
misconduct: : Opening day |
2 | 3
| 4 | 5
| 6 | 7
|
- Carol
Bunko-Ruys exams for
discovery
-
- Carol
Bunko Ruys reports
-
- The Thompson papers
-
- Anita's
diary
-
- Ross, Ross and White
-
Dueck's files
introductory
comments and Dueck's Statement as to Documents | 01
| 02
| 03
| 04
| 05
| 06
| 07
| 08
| 09
| 10
| 11
| 12
| 13
| 14
| 15
| 16
| 17
| 18
| 19
| "blood in panties"
investigation notes |
The Prosecutor's Statement
as to Documents | MacNeil
Clinic report from 1987
Sermonette
on McKillop and Quennell, the Static Duo
-
- False Memory Syndrome: Dr. Colin Clay, Saskatoon's malicious clergyman
- Perjury: Dr. Tana Dineen makes the case for
punishing perjurers
- Adrian
Mak
-
- The Klassen Kvello case
- injusticebusters'
reports
- media
reports
- Nonsuit
judgment
|
