To bribe or not to bribe? To sue or not to sue? Those are the questions .....
Good Day Readers:
You've got to wonder if the Harper government will move up the date of the next election: the Mike Duffy trial; "Hurrican Pam"; the Mac Harb and Patrick Brazeau trials and now a possible prosecution of Nigel Wright.
CyberSmokeBlog's Chief Political Analyst advises, "There's a huge .... storm hurricane coming at the Conservatives!"
Thank you Mr. Lahey for your insightful analysis and weather report.
Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
Democracy group wants to lay private charges against Wright
By Stephen Maher
Monday, April 21, 2014
A watchdog group is considering laying a private prosecution against Nigel Wright for his secret $90,000 payment to Senator Mike Duffy.
Democracy Watch, a non-partisan advocacy group that pushes for greater accountability, says it will lay charges against Wright unless the RCMP and prosecutors do a better job of explaining why they have decided not to charge the Prime Minister’s former Chief of Staff.
“We don’t even know who the prosecutors that were involved are, the RCMP officials involved in the decision, let alone the reasons,” said Duff Conacher, founder of Democracy Watch.
Last Tuesday, the RCMP announced that “upon completion of the investigation, we have concluded that the evidence gathered does not support criminal charges against Mr. Wright.”
Conacher says the evidence presented in court documents by the RCMP makes that hard to understand.
“Given the clear evidence that Duffy was required to do specific things in return for the payment from Nigel Wright, and given that the laws have never or very rarely been ruled on by the courts, the RCMP or prosecutors must provide a detailed explanation or they will face ongoing questions about what they are covering up and whether they have properly enforced the law in the public interest,” he said.
In documents filed in order to force the production of documents, RCMP investigator Corporal Greg Horton alleged that Wright violated section 119 of the Criminal Code, which forbids anyone from “corruptly” giving or offering money to a parliamentarian “in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by that person in their official capacity.”
Former Parliamentary Law Clerk Rob Walsh has said that since Wright was not seeking private benefit — like a federal contract or grant — the payment likely doesn’t qualify as “corrupt.”
Conacher, who is a faculty member at the University of Toronto Law School, disagrees with Walsh’s interpretation of “corrupt,” and says the law was designed to prevent even the offer of a payment.
“If you just offer to pay them, then you have violated 119, and thank God it’s written that way,” Conacher said. “Otherwise attempted bribery would be legal. And they could legally take the money and not do the action.”
Conacher has lined up a criminal lawyer to lay an information against Wright with a Justice of the Peace, using evidence from court documents filed by the RCMP. Theoretically, a Justice of the Peace could allow the prosecution to proceed, but in practice, the Provincial Attorney General’s Office has the right to block private prosecutions.
Conacher says he wants the opportunity to ask the RCMP and prosecutors to explain their decisions.
“Hopefully the Justice of the Peace will require them to provide an explanation,” he said. “That’s what we’re looking for.”
Conacher does not trust the independence of the RCMP, and says he believes the decision not to lay charges is a “coverup.”
The RCMP, which is expected to lay charges against Mike Duffy in the weeks ahead, said in an email Tuesday that it can’t explain its decision not to charge Wright.
“We are not in a position to comment on the matter,” said Corporal. Lucy Shorey. “Doing so may jeopardize our ongoing investigation. We can, however, confirm that many witnesses were interviewed and facts were thoroughly examined. Upon completion of the investigation, the evidence gathered did not support the laying of criminal charges against Mr. Wright.”
Wright’s lawyer, Peter Mantas, declined to comment on Tuesday, reiterating a statement from Wright last week, in which he stated his “intention was to secure the repayment of taxpayer funds,” and that he always believed his actions were lawful.
Duffy has also said that he believes his actions were legal, and blamed the Prime Minister’s Office for forcing him to pay back expense payments.
smaher@postmedia.com
@stphnmaher
You've got to wonder if the Harper government will move up the date of the next election: the Mike Duffy trial; "Hurrican Pam"; the Mac Harb and Patrick Brazeau trials and now a possible prosecution of Nigel Wright.
Thank you Mr. Lahey for your insightful analysis and weather report.
Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
 |
| Duff Conacher |
Democracy group wants to lay private charges against Wright
By Stephen Maher
Monday, April 21, 2014
A watchdog group is considering laying a private prosecution against Nigel Wright for his secret $90,000 payment to Senator Mike Duffy.
Democracy Watch, a non-partisan advocacy group that pushes for greater accountability, says it will lay charges against Wright unless the RCMP and prosecutors do a better job of explaining why they have decided not to charge the Prime Minister’s former Chief of Staff.
“We don’t even know who the prosecutors that were involved are, the RCMP officials involved in the decision, let alone the reasons,” said Duff Conacher, founder of Democracy Watch.
Last Tuesday, the RCMP announced that “upon completion of the investigation, we have concluded that the evidence gathered does not support criminal charges against Mr. Wright.”
Conacher says the evidence presented in court documents by the RCMP makes that hard to understand.
“Given the clear evidence that Duffy was required to do specific things in return for the payment from Nigel Wright, and given that the laws have never or very rarely been ruled on by the courts, the RCMP or prosecutors must provide a detailed explanation or they will face ongoing questions about what they are covering up and whether they have properly enforced the law in the public interest,” he said.
In documents filed in order to force the production of documents, RCMP investigator Corporal Greg Horton alleged that Wright violated section 119 of the Criminal Code, which forbids anyone from “corruptly” giving or offering money to a parliamentarian “in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by that person in their official capacity.”
Former Parliamentary Law Clerk Rob Walsh has said that since Wright was not seeking private benefit — like a federal contract or grant — the payment likely doesn’t qualify as “corrupt.”
Conacher, who is a faculty member at the University of Toronto Law School, disagrees with Walsh’s interpretation of “corrupt,” and says the law was designed to prevent even the offer of a payment.
“If you just offer to pay them, then you have violated 119, and thank God it’s written that way,” Conacher said. “Otherwise attempted bribery would be legal. And they could legally take the money and not do the action.”
Conacher has lined up a criminal lawyer to lay an information against Wright with a Justice of the Peace, using evidence from court documents filed by the RCMP. Theoretically, a Justice of the Peace could allow the prosecution to proceed, but in practice, the Provincial Attorney General’s Office has the right to block private prosecutions.
Conacher says he wants the opportunity to ask the RCMP and prosecutors to explain their decisions.
“Hopefully the Justice of the Peace will require them to provide an explanation,” he said. “That’s what we’re looking for.”
Conacher does not trust the independence of the RCMP, and says he believes the decision not to lay charges is a “coverup.”
The RCMP, which is expected to lay charges against Mike Duffy in the weeks ahead, said in an email Tuesday that it can’t explain its decision not to charge Wright.
“We are not in a position to comment on the matter,” said Corporal. Lucy Shorey. “Doing so may jeopardize our ongoing investigation. We can, however, confirm that many witnesses were interviewed and facts were thoroughly examined. Upon completion of the investigation, the evidence gathered did not support the laying of criminal charges against Mr. Wright.”
Wright’s lawyer, Peter Mantas, declined to comment on Tuesday, reiterating a statement from Wright last week, in which he stated his “intention was to secure the repayment of taxpayer funds,” and that he always believed his actions were lawful.
Duffy has also said that he believes his actions were legal, and blamed the Prime Minister’s Office for forcing him to pay back expense payments.
smaher@postmedia.com
@stphnmaher
posted by Clare L. Pieuk at 5:55 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home