Rahim Jaffer

grumpy old man wrote:

Pavolo wrote:Damage control If they really cared it would not have happened . The federel minister can and could follow the case , and over rule the judge .

Is this true? Anyone other than an appeal judge can OVERRULE a judge in a criminal matter?

Anyone? This possible Pav?

JTF wrote:A Minister cannot over-rule a judge...or even a Magistrate....that's just silly talk.

Can a Minister over rule a Priest? What about a Rabbi?

Freeman wrote:

JTF wrote:A Minister cannot over-rule a judge...or even a Magistrate....that's just silly talk.

Can a Minister over rule a Priest? What about a Rabbi?

What about a Rabbai rabbit?

This some of I look for and no it is not silly talk JTF

In dealing with a case which has been referred to him the Attorney General is unquestionably entitled to obtain information and advice from whatever source he sees fit including his colleagues in Cabinet. The course of action which he adopts in particular cases must, however, in the last analysis be his decision. The Attorney General does not act on directions from his colleagues, other members of Parliament or anyone else in discharging his duties in the enforcement of the law. On the other hand he must, of course, be prepared to answer in Parliament for what he does. These principles are well known and established not only in Canada, but in the United Kingdom and elsewhere where the system of Parliamentary democracy exists.<sup>6

This is stating that the Attorny generel has the power to enforce the cocain charge</sup>
The statutory responsibilities of the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada are set out in over 40 federal statutes³. Those responsibilities which form the mandate of the Federal Prosecution Service, can be found, inter alia, in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code, the Department of Justice Act, the Extradition Act, the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act and the common law.
The Criminal Code defines the prosecution mandate of the Attorney General of Canada as follows (in s. 2):
“Attorney General,”

1. with respect to
   
   
   1. the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, or
      
   2. proceedings commenced at the instance of the Government of Canada and conducted by or on behalf of that Government in respect of a contravention of, a conspiracy or attempt to contravene or counselling the contravention of any Act of Parliament other than this Act or any regulation made under any such Act, means the Attorney General of Canada and includes his lawful de
      

I do not have time to find the rest but I will just for the hell of it

And this shows that the drug act is under his atthority to deal and over see so he has the power.

Elsewhere in Canada, violations of the Criminal Code are prosecuted by the provincial attorneys general, and the Attorney General of Canada prosecutes violations of federal statutes other than the Criminal Code (e.g., the Competition Act, the Environmental Protection Act) and conspiracies and attempts to violate these statutes⁴. In all provinces except Québec and New Brunswick, the Attorney General of Canada prosecutes all violations of drug laws (the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act) whether the charges originate from the RCMP or from any other police force. In Québec and New Brunswick, the Attorney General of Canada only prosecutes drug cases investigated by the RCMP. In 1980, the Supreme Court of Canada, in the case of R. v. Hauser, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 984, recognized that both the federal and provincial governments had prosecutorial jurisdiction with respect to drug offences. In Québec and New Brunswick, the provincial Attorneys General have exercised their jurisdiction and prosecute drug offences investigated by provincial and municipal police forces.

I've read that three times. Perhaps I'm a little thick. Nowhere does it say "a federel minister" can OVERRULE a judge in a criminal matter.

Are you saying "a federel minister" can force the crown to "prosecute" a specific charge?
-or-
Are you saying "a federel minister" can force a judge to "change" his findings?

There is a very clear and strong distinction and seperation between the courts and parliament Pav.

Totally seperate entities that have their own powers which do not overlap.

JTF wrote:There is a very clear and strong distinction and seperation between the courts and parliament Pav.

Totally seperate entities that have their own powers which do not overlap.

Very true, any first year law student knows the separation of the responsibilities of the Judiciary and the Government. Think for a moment what would happen if the federal Minister of Justice started interferring with the Courts.

Ummm' it;s federel if you please . Don;t yu no the Queens english ?

No, its federal. I checked it out with the Queen.

JTF wrote:There is a very clear and strong distinction and seperation between the courts and parliament Pav.

Totally seperate entities that have their own powers which do not overlap.

No fricking kidding 1st year will teach you the differences .

Attorney General of Canada prosecutes all violations of drug laws (the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act) whether the charges originate from the RCMP or from any other police force. In Québec and New Brunswick, the Attorney General of Canada only prosecutes drug cases investigated by the RCMP. In 1980, the Supreme Court of Canada, in the case

Read between the lines and think who is the prosecuter .

...but the possession charges were dropped, he, the former Conservative MP, who is married to a Conservative MP, who is a b1tch, was charge with careless driving. What does careless driving have to do with drugs....anyway?

Pav, I've asked two or three times now. You've clearly stated "a federel minister can OVERRULE a judge".

Precisely what do you mean by this?

It is recognized in this context that the ADAG (Criminal Law) has the authority:

• to intervene personally in a local matter. In practice, however, this authority should be exercised rarely;
  
• 
  


• 
  


• The ADAG (Criminal Law) has been given functional responsibility over the manner in which the prosecution function is carried out on behalf of the Attorney General and Minister of Justice. He or she is in turn answerable directly to the Deputy Minister and then to the Minister, with respect to the manner in which he or she exercises that functional responsibility.⁴
  

If you like I will keep finding you more but whats the use you still won,t see it .
But the case because of the drugs was in the realm of the Federal Minister thru the Attorney General which is all this has basically told you . You do not want to believe it to bad .

So, what is the source of your post and what are the 2 bullets that are omitted?

When I move tabbed they were created if you need more go the web site for the Attorny General Of Canada . Who is under the Minister of Justice who is under the Prime Minister . Last I have got to say on this for tired of playing games .

Pavolo wrote:It is recognized in this context that the ADAG (Criminal Law) has the authority:

• to intervene personally in a local matter. In practice, however, this authority should be exercised rarely;

Not much more needs to be said.

Pav, it's not a matter of not WANTING to see it. It is that I CANNOT see it.

You used very specific language when you said a minister can OVERRULE a judge.

That means, to me at least, that were a judge to find someone guilty that a minister can say, nope judge, I don't agree, so I will OVERRULE your conviction and I will change it or dismiss it.

Is this what you were implying?

This must be the fourth time I've asked the question. Seriously man, quit whining and answer the question... Or don't post crap you won't explain or define.

The Minister can 'intervene' in the Prosecution of a matter, but not with the Court.

Two entirely different matters.

Can't seem to get Pav to answer the question.

JTF wrote:The Minister can 'intervene' in the Prosecution of a matter, but not with the Court.

Two entirely different matters.

See, now that makes sense to me.

Seems like common sense is in short supply of late...

JTF wrote:The Minister can 'intervene' in the Prosecution of a matter, but not with the Court.

Two entirely different matters.

That's right after the case has gone through the courts the Attorney general can appeal and prove the ruling was to be insufficent or understated . And I will find the sections I want, it may take some time . After all there are alot of places to look .

And Grumpy if it crap for you to bad , see most people that I work with would say the prove has been given but you do not see it or read it right .
I will find it for you and then you can maybe understand it better . In the mean time it ain't crap just cause you do not understand it .

Also The use of minister may be ahead of the fact the Minister can ask the Attorney General and he can look at the ruling and appeal . The Federal Justice Minister can ask for this also , as can the PM .
The Over rule is done by the Att General . Sorry I re read what was said and yes it was some what unclear to this bearing . But it stands it can be overruled , at different points of the procedure .

Freeman wrote:

Pavolo wrote:It is recognized in this context that the ADAG (Criminal Law) has the authority:

• to intervene personally in a local matter. In practice, however, this authority should be exercised rarely;

Not much more needs to be said.

Thats right it can be done but it is not done lightly .