This article was last updated on April 16, 2022
Canada: 
Oye! Times readers Get FREE $30 to spend on Amazon, Walmart…
USA: Oye! Times readers Get FREE $30 to spend on Amazon, Walmart…
The top court of Ontario made an unordinary decision on Tuesday as it publicly rebuked a judge for unfitting conduct during multiple cases resulting in overturned convictions and costly retrials. The judgment of the Appeal Court justices mentioned that the judgment of allowing an appeal of two convicted drug dealers, made it clear they were fed up with Superior Court Justice Robert Scott.
The official statement of Appeal Court, mentioned that “this is the second time in less than one year that this court has allowed appeals relating to judgments of this trial judge on the basis of reasonable apprehension of bias.” It alleged that “in both instances, public resources were wasted, great inconvenience to the parties resulted, and the integrity of the administration of justice was tarnished.” The decision of Appeal Court suppressed Scott’s convictions in August 2011 of John Huang and co-conspirator Ying Huang in Belleville, Ont., for various marijuana-related offences. Trial transcripts depicted that while Crown was cross-examining John Huang, Scott jumped in and inquired if accused understood “what perjury is.” Huang’s lawyer objected, saying, “I don’t think that it is proper for your honour to interject and caution him about perjury at a point when he is trying to explain an answer.”
A lawyer and vice-president of the Ontario Criminal Lawyer’s Association, Andras Schreck, mentioned that “the problem here is that the judge made comments in the middle of the evidence that suggested he had already concluded that the accused was not being truthful.”
Be the first to comment