Wow....unbelievable, oh wait nevermind that's our lovely justice system

[tacomama]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...ayed-1.4414352

Charges have been dropped against a Calgary man accused in a fatal hit and run after the judge ruled police behaved improperly during their interrogation of the suspect.

Robert Mark Varley, 60, was on trial for a hit and run resulting in the death of Farida Abdurahman, 33..........

.....Varley was charged with impaired driving in 2003, 2004 and 2009 in Richmond, B.C. He pleaded guilty to the lesser, traffic offence of careless driving for the 2003 and 2009 infractions and was acquitted of the 2004 charge.



What a P.O.S. lowlife.... and he goes free, again!

[58thecat]

Head shake time...guy sure has a shady track record with the law.

[CaberTosser]

And he probably drove straight to a bar or liquor store on the way home.... There should be some component to prevent these ticking time bombs from ever driving again, including registration as a dangerous offender and being jailed indefinitely if that's what it takes to protect society at large from being killed or maimed by him. He's already killed for Pete's sake.... Does he have to run over a judges children or grandkids to actually serve any time?

[Hillbilly 12]

Unreal, so because the police did something wrong that erases the death of a person. So that changes the fact he killed somebody? Discussing. Judges need to start having it happen to their familes, then it would be different.

[trophybook]

I just sat through court today, a 17 year old girl convicted of dangerous driving causing death got 6 months house arrest and broke curfew and received 40 hrs community service hours due by end of May 2018. I've lost all faith in the justice system.

[whiteout]

Originally Posted by Hillbilly 12

Unreal, so because the police did something wrong that erases the death of a person. So that changes the fact he killed somebody? Discussing. Judges need to start having it happen to their familes, then it would be different.

The evidence gleaned from an interrogation where his Charter rights were breached was tossed. If the Crown had any other evidence, they were more than able to continue with the case. Since they apparently had none, the Crown withdrew the charges. It’s the correct call on the judge’s part, unless you support allowing the police to violate the Charter while they investigate things?

This lies solely on the shoulders of the two officers who continued to interrogate him when they should have known better.

[wags]

Originally Posted by whiteout

The evidence gleaned from an interrogation where his Charter rights were breached was tossed. If the Crown had any other evidence, they were more than able to continue with the case. Since they apparently had none, the Crown withdrew the charges. It’s the correct call on the judge’s part, unless you support allowing the police to violate the Charter while they investigate things?

This lies solely on the shoulders of the two officers who continued to interrogate him when they should have known better.

This.

[ryeguy21]

not sure how ones anger isnt directed at the idiot police who should know about their suspects rights.

Why one would defend charter rights violations against any canadian is beyond me.

[Hillbilly 12]

Originally Posted by whiteout

The evidence gleaned from an interrogation where his Charter rights were breached was tossed. If the Crown had any other evidence, they were more than able to continue with the case. Since they apparently had none, the Crown withdrew the charges. It’s the correct call on the judge’s part, unless you support allowing the police to violate the Charter while they investigate things?

This lies solely on the shoulders of the two officers who continued to interrogate him when they should have known better.

To me his rights should be stripped after what he did, to me he gave them up when he ran the guy over, but that's this crazy world we live in. It does not change the fact he killed somebody. I wish laws were different, but that's just crazy me.

[Spooner]

Thanks go to CPS.

Case closed boys.

Another job well done.

[whiteout]

Originally Posted by Hillbilly 12

To me his rights should be stripped after what he did, to me he gave them up when he ran the guy over, but that's this crazy world we live in. It does not change the fact he killed somebody. I wish laws were different, but that's just crazy me.

So the second someone comes under police investigation, you would support the immediate suspension of their Charter rights?

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by whiteout

The evidence gleaned from an interrogation where his Charter rights were breached was tossed. If the Crown had any other evidence, they were more than able to continue with the case. Since they apparently had none, the Crown withdrew the charges. It’s the correct call on the judge’s part, unless you support allowing the police to violate the Charter while they investigate things?
This lies solely on the shoulders of the two officers who continued to interrogate him when they should have known better.

I think that the judge made the correct call but I do not think this case blew apart because the officers should have known better.

Without the confession of the accused there was no case. If the officers did not try, there was no case. It is not as if the accused would have been convicted if the officers did not continue with the interrogation. The officers could have simply turned the accused loose and there still would have been no case. The officers did attempt to make a case and continue with the interrogation. The crown chose to try the case and let the judge rule if there was a charter violation or not.

If the officers would have just let the accused go without trying some would have still put this on the shoulders of the two officers.

[drhu22]

Originally Posted by tacomama

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...ayed-1.4414352
Charges have been dropped against a Calgary man accused in a fatal hit and run after the judge ruled police behaved improperly during their interrogation of the suspect. Robert Mark Varley, 60, was on trial for a hit and run resulting in the death of Farida Abdurahman, 33...............Varley was charged with impaired driving in 2003, 2004 and 2009 in Richmond, B.C. He pleaded guilty to the lesser, traffic offence of careless driving for the 2003 and 2009 infractions and was acquitted of the 2004 charge.What a P.O.S. lowlife.... and he goes free, again!

Police corruption has never happened, we dont need safeguards against that (sarcasm). Ask yourself... have you researched/studied the particulars of the case, or are you reacting to a headline?

[silverdoctor]

And this folks is why we need Miranda rights in Canada.

Sorry, but when police are given total authority over an interrogation, and the accused doesn't have the right to have a lawyer present during questioning - this can the result.

I don't like it either, another arsehole walks but it's the cops' fault. If they are allowed to get away with this, then there are no checks and balances to speak of.

[270man]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

And this folks is why we need Miranda rights in Canada.

Sorry, but when police are given total authority over an interrogation, and the accused doesn't have the right to have a lawyer present during questioning - this can the result.

I don't like it either, another arsehole walks but it's the cops' fault. If they are allowed to get away with this, then there are no checks and balances to speak of.

X2

[Spooner]

If the cops were higher quality professionals, it wouldnt be a problem.

Love the statement the CPS released on this.

"A good learning opportunity".

They should be fired./

At least they didnt perjure themselves *cough* Kaminski

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

And this folks is why we need Miranda rights in Canada.

Sorry, but when police are given total authority over an interrogation, and the accused doesn't have the right to have a lawyer present during questioning - this can the result.

I don't like it either, another arsehole walks but it's the cops' fault. If they are allowed to get away with this, then there are no checks and balances to speak of.

Miranda is just a bunch of magic words that once said allow the police to continue to violate the accused rights. With Miranda the interrogation continues till the lawyer shows up to take his client. If an accused is coerced into a confession, too bad so sad but he was given his Miranda.

Both Miranda and the Charter allow the right to have a lawyer present. Any lawyer in the US or here will not allow an interrogation to continue unless he/she makes a deal.

Miranda advises the right to a lawyer and the charter requires that the officers say you have the right to retain and instruct council without delay.
There are check and balances and this case demonstrates those checks and balances and this case demonstrates those checks and balances in action that allowed the judge to rule against the confession.

I am not surprised that you find the cops at fault because the accused walked . I don't fault them in this case and think they did what they could.

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

Miranda is just a bunch of magic words that once said allow the police to continue to violate the accused rights. With Miranda the interrogation continues till the lawyer shows up to take his client. If an accused is coerced into a confession, too bad so sad but he was given his Miranda.

Both Miranda and the Charter allow the right to have a lawyer present. Any lawyer in the US or here will not allow an interrogation to continue unless he/she makes a deal.

Miranda advises the right to a lawyer and the charter requires that the officers say you have the right to retain and instruct council without delay.
There are check and balances and this case demonstrates those checks and balances and this case demonstrates those checks and balances in action that allowed the judge to rule against the confession.

I am not surprised that you find the cops at fault because the accused walked . I don't fault them in this case and think they did what they could.

Yes, you get to talk to a lawyer - on the phone. The lawyer is likely going to tell you to remain silent, and stay silent. But wouldn't it be nice if we could have a lawyer present during custodial interrogation - if you get arrested today, and end up spending hours being interrogated - you do not have the right to have an attorney present during that interrogation. The Charter doesn't provide for that, it's just you and the cops.
This has been through the supreme court.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

Yes, you get to talk to a lawyer - on the phone. The lawyer is likely going to tell you to remain silent, and stay silent. But wouldn't it be nice if we could have a lawyer present during custodial interrogation - if you get arrested today, and end up spending hours being interrogated - you do not have the right to have an attorney present during that interrogation. The Charter doesn't provide for that, it's just you and the cops.
This has been through the supreme court.

Simply not true!

That said if a lawyer sits in on an interrogation he/she will probably not let his client answer a single question and for practical purposes the interrogation or interview is over.

For those who pine away for an American style justice and Miranda they should know that the charter provides for more rights. The Miranda is called a warning and once read it does nothing to prevent the interrogation from continuing and quite often the interrogation ramps up until the lawyer arrives and shuts it down. If for some reason the client blabs his guts out prior to the arrival of the lawyer and against the lawyers wishes the confession will probably stand justified by reason that Miranda was read and accused is at fault for not heading the warning.

In Canada the judge will decide if the confession stands or does not stand on the criteria of was the confession voluntary and did the accused know he/she had the right to not say anything.

If for some reason I found myself in custody for something I did or did not do, I would rather be in Canada than any place other.

[tacomama]

Originally Posted by drhu22

Police corruption has never happened, we dont need safeguards against that (sarcasm). Ask yourself... have you researched/studied the particulars of the case, or are you reacting to a headline?

According to the news, this lowlife actually killed another human, are you forgetting that part?
I am not defending the cops that screwed up here, it is really too bad they did, but looking at what this guy did changes things a bit wouldn't you say? It was a hit and run and the evidence pointed to him and his track record doesn't exactly show he is an upstanding citizen...
Yes I am only reading the article and reacting to it.
Everyone should have their rights, I agree with this, but to see this guy get away with this due to basically a technicality makes me sick. Yes the cops should have handled it differently but it doesn't change what he did.

[The Cook]

I believe we as Canadians have the right to remain silent. In other words "keep your mouth shut" if you find yourself in this situation.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by The Cook

I believe we as Canadians have the right to remain silent. In other words "keep your mouth shut" if you find yourself in this situation.

Not only do we have the right to remain silent but we have the right to retain and instruct council without delay.