Super Duceppe - My New Hero
The Globe & Mail reports that Gilles Duceppe, leader of the Bloc Quebecois has asked RCMP to investigate Grewal's taped conversations with Ujjal Dosanjh and Tim Murphy both of the Liberal Party.
The concern by media is that Mr. Grewal surreptitiously taped the conversations without the knowledge of Dosnajh or Murphy.
Investigative reporters usually surreptitiously tape unsuspecting individuals to get evidence to support their investigations.
The question of entrapment has also floated around. Entrapment is "a common law defense when authorities provide a person with an opportunity to commit an offense without acting on a reasonable suspicion that an individual [or party in this case] is already engaged in criminal activity or pursuant to a bona fide inquiry" - Barron's Canadian Law Dictionary
The question, for me is, whether or not Grewal is an 'authority'. I would opine that he is since he is a member of the House of Commons, he is of some authority.
According to the definitions in Martin's Criminal Code of Canada, Under s. 2 'Interpretation' :
"Parliament may constitutionally vest exclusive jurisdiction in the Attorney General of Canada to prosecute offences which do not depend for their validity on s. 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867: R. v. Hauser, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 984, 46 C.C.C. (2d) 481, 8 C.R. (3d) 89 (5:2).
It would also seem that Parliament may vest prosecutorial authority in the federal Attorney General under this section even where the offence depends for its validity on the criminal law power is s. 91(27): Canada (Attorney General) v. Canadian National Transportation, Ltd., et al"
I hope Duceppe doesn't stop there. I hope he also requests the RCMP to investigate Belinda Stronach, Martin and David Peterson under s. 125 of the C.C.C for influencing or negotiating appointments or dealing in offices' for the position she was given as Minister of Human Resources without the political qualifications in order to influence yesterday's vote.
posted by HR at 5/20/2005 09:30:00 a.m.
2 Comments:
I can't recall if I posted this on your site or elsewhere. (mental note: I really MUST start keeping track of these things!)
A friend of mine (long story, worthy of at least 10 blogs on its own) was interviewed by the RCMP over her purchase of a boat (for water skiing - recreational kind of stuff) that was perceived (by the RCMP) to have not been a "real" transaction (by coincidence she was seeing the person who initially SOLD the boat who was under investigation for fraud).
Long story short. Without knowing about the alleged fraud of her erstwhile companion, but having suspicions that, as the nun in Madeline likes to say "something is not quite right", she borrowed a friend's dictaphone and had it turned ON during her conversation with said RCMP.
Four years and somewhere between 20-40k later plus one dead long term relationship plus untold damage to her health plus plus plus, she won a case against the RCMP and finally got her boat back (very very long story). Apparently either the ONLY person in Canada or, at the "very very" least, one of a few.
She won buy playing said recording in court.
POLICE cannot tape a conversation without the agreement of second, third etc parties. Citizens can. And can use it in a court of law.
;->
Good information! Are you able to find the legislation that allows a citizen to tape? I think I might have a few of those and I'd like to post the transcript once I am clear legally.
Post a Comment
<< Home