PRIVATE PROSECUTION

Page 1 of 2

[t]he power of private prosecution is undoubtedly right and necessary in that it enables the citizen to bring even the police or the government officials before the criminal courts when they commit wrongs against citizens, where the government itself is unwilling to make the first move. [Coming from the Reform Commission of Canada on Private Prosecution].

And an American Commentator who was convinced that a system of private prosecutions system is a necessary adjunct to a public prosecutions system because he claims that:

A system of private prosecution can be justified in terms of both societys interest in increased law enforcement and the individuals interest in vindication of personal grievances.

Full participation by the citizen as a private prosecutor is needed to cope with the serious threat to society posed by the [public prosecutors] improper action and inaction.

In Canada, however the citizens are led to believe that the Crown is the only entity that can handle prosecution, as they claim they work in the best interest of the community, province and ultimately the country --Not--

In the Ouimet Report, it deliberately minimizes the individual's interest in vindication of personal grievances as an element of punishment, this interest nonetheless has a place in our Criminal Justice System.

It may be unwise for a society to ignore this elemental facet of human personality, since individuals, frustrated by the law, may seek unlawful means.

Clearly the party has a valid interest in the exacting of justice.

It is no answer to respond to this contention by saying that the victim has a remedy in the civil courts, because his or her injuries are not really measurable in monetary damages.

Also, the accused will almost invariably be judgment-proof.

In the spirit of Abraham Lincoln, "With malice torwards none, with charity towards all".

In the context of a private prosecution, there are no malice nor any personal gratification but simply a desire to seek justice.

Thus this is to say that a private prosecution is a serious step and one that must be done with honestty.

Knowing legal procedures and knowing the law is an essential part of the entire process, thus anyone with any good intention need to come from a high place, for no judge will be favourable to an informant who has not done his or her homework.

Following is the law on Private Prosecution:

What does government legislation have to say about your RIGHT to lay a private Prosecution?

Part VI

POLICY IN CERTAIN TYPES OF LITIGATION

Chapter 26

26 PRIVATE PROSECUTIONS

26.1 Introduction

The relationship between the private citizen, as prosecutor, and the Attorney General, who has exclusive authority to represent the public in court, has been described as follows:

The right of a private citizen to lay an information, and the right and duty of the Attorney General to supervise criminal prosecutions are both fundamental parts of our criminal justice system.

The right of a citizen to institute a prosecution for a breach of the law has been called "a valuable constitutional safeguard against inertia or partiality on the part of authority".

However, this right can be abused.

It is sometimes necessary for the Attorney General to intervene and conduct or stay the prosecution to prevent the harms that may flow from such prosecutions, for example:

1) the harm suffered by a defendant who is factually innocent;

2) the harm to the court system caused by a frivolous prosecution.

Please note that it is a well known fact in the Province of British Columbia, the secret policy directive of the Attorney General's office, is "not to proceed on any private prosecution", and there are many examples of their interference in cases where of overwhelming evidence of criminal wrongdoing was demonstrated to a Justice of the Peace and a judge.

Both of the excuses raised above, on behalf of the Attorney General to quash a private prosecution, fail to consider that the private party must FIRST present his/her evidence of the charge(s) to a Judge.

It therefore belies all common sense for the Attorney General to assert that "Private Prosecutions" are in any way MORE harmful to the innocent, or frivolous, than the thousands of Prosecutions THEY themselves commence on a daily basis.

An impartial Judge is more than qualified in making the lawful determination of facts; AS IS A JURY, WHICH OUR LAW OF THE LAND (Eternal Magna Carta) states is our inherent right before we can be imprisoned, or our property seized.

It is THE JURY OF OUR PEERS that is our greatest safeguard against harm to the innocent.

See below (as you read this government document) how the government is continuing to obstruct justice, and encroach on your unalienable right to bring the guilty to justice under our common law, as preserved in our Great Charter of Liberties, 1215, 1297.

This chapter explains the law on initiating and conducting private prosecutions. It also explains when the Attorney General of Canada may and should intervene either to conduct or stay such prosecutions.

26.2 Origin of Private Prosecutions

A private citizen's right to initiate and conduct a private prosecution originates in the early common law.

From the early Middle Ages to the 17th century, private prosecutions were the main way to enforce the criminal law.

Indeed, private citizens were responsible for preserving the peace and maintaining the law:

[U]nder the English common law, crimes were regarded originally as being committed not against the state but against a particular person or family.

It followed that the victim or some relative would initiate and conduct the prosecution against the offender ...

Another feature of the English common law was the view that it was not [actually] the privilege but the duty [by right] of the private citizen to preserve the King's Peace and bring offenders to justice.

Because of the increase in courts and cases in the Middle Ages, the King began to appoint King's Attorneys to intervene in matters of particular interest to the King.

Intervention took two forms. The King could initiate and conduct certain prosecutions through a personal representative.

The King could also intervene in cases begun by a private prosecutor where the matter was of special concern to the King.

By intervening, the King's Attorney could then conduct or stop the proceedings.

As the English common law developed, the role of Crown law officers grew.

Still, private prosecutions were allowed. To this day they are recognized in several English statutes.

26.3 Foundation for Private Prosecutions in Canadian Law

No Criminal Code provision expressly authorizes private prosecutions.

Several provisions, however, impliedly recognize such proceedings.

Except where the Attorney General's consent is required, section 504 of the Code permits anyone to lay an information.

As well, the definitions of "prosecutor" in sections 2 and 785 make it clear that someone other than the Attorney General may institute proceedings. These provisions apply to proceedings under the Code and all other federal acts.

Prior to the 2002 amendments to the Criminal Code10, courts had held:

a) a private citizen may institute and conduct a prosecution under federal legislation without the knowledge or participation of the Attorney General of Canada;

b) clear and specific language is required to abolish private prosecutions under a federal statute.

Pursuant to the 2002 amendments, however, important limitations were introduced on the right of a private citizen to institute proceedings.

Section 507.1 of the Code requires a justice receiving such an information to refer it to a judge or designated justice, and requires notice to the Attorney General and an opportunity for the Attorney General to participate in a hearing to determine whether a summons or warrant for the arrest of the accused shall issue.

In summary conviction proceedings, the private prosecutor controls the proceedings from start to finish unless the Attorney General intervenes.

In indictable matters, a private prosecutor may conduct the trial, including the preliminary inquiry.

However, the private prosecutor requires a judge's consent under subsection 574(3) of the Code to prefer an indictment.

26.4 Authority of the Attorney General of Canada to Intervene in Private Prosecutions More