|
||||
Judge cuts damages in assault wowenThe following article is another example on how the Canadian Court and lawyers together keep undermining the citizenry in this country. JUDGE CUTS DAMAGES IN ASSAULT ON WOMAN TRANSLINK POLICE: HER ACTIONS WRONG, TOO By Keith Fraser/Staff Reporter at THE PROVINCE Friday, April 28, 06 A former Vancouver ESL teacher has had her $52,000 award for damages for being assaulted by two TransLink cops about $12,000. A B.C. Supreme Court jury found that one of the cops, TransLink officer Walter Rossa, has assaulted Christy Logeman when he bashed her in the eye with his flashlight in November 2002. Logeman testified that she was attacked after the officers were summoned to the scene of a dispute between herself and a former boyfriend. She admitted to swinging her bag toward one of the officers and said she was then wrestled to the ground before being hit in the eye. The two officers gave a different version of events, with Rossa testifying he was hit by the bag as Logeman resisted arrest. After a two-week trial, the jury found Logeman was 35 per-cent responsible and the officers, TransLink and the province 65 per-cent to blame. Logeman was awarded $52,000, comprising $30,000 in punitive damages and about $20,000 in general damages. Lawyers for TransLink argued that the award should be reduced by 35 per-cent but B.C. Supreme Court Justice Janet Sinclair-Prowse agreed with only a part of their submission. She ruled that the jury had found Rossa�s conduct intentional and his behaviour afterward indifferent and high-handed, but that Logeman had behaved in a wrongful manner as well. The Judge ordered the punitive damages cut by 17� per-cent,or by about $5,000, and the general damages by 35 per-cent, or $7,000. Trans Link also asked to have the legal costs cut but the judge ordered that the plaintiff get 100 per-cent of the costs. Lawyers for the two sides could not say if they would appeal. Logeman, who was not in court yesterday, was initially charged with assault but the charge was stayed. She launched a private prosecution against the cops but those charges were also stayed. [email protected] Critic: The true purpose of a jury system is to prevent abuses from the "king's" interference and to ensure that it is in fact, the people, and not the government, that decides the fates of their fellow citizens. As recent as January 24, 2006, the British Columbia Court of Appeal was recently asked to decide whether there are limits on the prosecution's right to appeal decisions by juries that go on in favour of a defendant in a criminal trial. The unusual case of Glen Donald Ekman, 48, in which he is appealling his first degree murder conviction in the 1998 beating and strangulation death of a 51 year-old woman in Langely B.C. Ekman's was acquitted at his first trial aand then found guilty of the lesser charge of attempted murder after a second trial. Unlike in the United States, the double jeopardy rules in Canada permit the Crown to appeal an acquittal handed over by a jury, and seek a new trial on the same charge. The decision of the BC Court of Appeal is important for this frail Canadian democracy, as irregardless of many people's belief, the Government Attorney should not be allowed to get another kick at the can. Ms. Logeman was awarded $52,000 by a jury of her peers and Justice Janet Sinclair-Prowse of the British Columbia Supreme Court reduced the damages that had been given to Ms. Logeman by a panel of 12 citizens. Such action from the Court and from lawyers should be unacceptable by all residents and citizens of this country. By such action taken by the Court and lawyers, it shows a complete disrespect for the jury system. J4Y Following is a reader writing to Keith Fraser on the issue of damages being reduced by the judge: Hello Keith Fraser In your story: "JUDGE CUTS DAMAGES IN ASSAULT ON WOMAN TRANSLINK POLICE: HER ACTIONS WRONG, TOO " By Keith Fraser/Staff Reporter at THE PROVINCE Friday, April 28, 06 "A former Vancouver ESL teacher has had her $52,000 award for damages for being assaulted by two TransLink cops about $12,000. Ms. Logeman was awarded $52,000 by a jury of her peers and Justice Janet Sinclair-Prowse of the British Columbia Supreme Court reduced the damages that had been given to Ms. Logeman by a panel of 12 citizens. What we have here is another case of judges failing to recuse themselves under situations of glaring conflict of interest. The judge had a conflict of interest in that the defendant was the attorney general of British Columbia and the judge Janet Sinclair-Prowse is married to Clifton Prowse a senior litigator in the civil section of the attorney general. From the law society records: D. Clifton Prowse Current Status: Practising Call Date: June 28, 1973 Profile Information: Call Date June 28, 1973 Address Ministry of Attorney General - Legal Services 1301 - 865 Hornby Street Vancouver, BC V6Z 2G3 Phone Number 604 660-3093 Clifton Prowse's salary as shown in the public accounts for fiscal year ending 31 Mar 04, was as follows: Prowse, D Clifton 105,742 For the fiscal year ending 31 Mar 05 Public Accounts show: Prowse, D. Clifton .....$105,805 Which shows his salary increase year over year was $63 per annum. His salary is substantially lower than others crown counsels when compared with crown counsels admitted to the bar 6 years later. Frank Stromotich Phd West Vancouver, BC |
||||
