This is very interesting. The high court found that the lower court Queen's Bench judge sentenced him with out any evidence presented. Wow... I don't understand how that can be right? The upper court wrote per the Malinowski sentencing..."the judge should have required the Crown to prove those facts by evidence" "As to the rest of the facts, the transcript of the sentencing hearing, at which no evidence was presented, indicated a wide divergence between the positions taken by the Crown and the defence."
5 comments:
This is very interesting. The high court found that the lower court Queen's Bench judge sentenced him with out any evidence presented. Wow... I don't understand how that can be right? The upper court wrote per the Malinowski sentencing..."the judge should have required the Crown to prove those facts by evidence" "As to the rest of the facts, the transcript of the sentencing hearing, at which no evidence was presented, indicated a wide divergence between the positions taken by the Crown and the defence."
No evidence presented and and a person can get 21 months?
He pleaded guilty.
We can not send someone with a strong religious connection in Saskatoon to jail.
It just would not look good.
But he was sent to jail, was he not?
He was sent to prison.
He served seven months prior to him appearing before the appeal oourt.
He plead guilty to one count in a pre-trial plea.
As a result the charges against his co-accused (his wife) were dropped.
There was at no time evidence presented to the court.
According to transcripts, the defense expected a sentence served in the community.
The judgment differed. He was sentenced to 21 months.
Post a Comment