Two men acquitted in 2007 Jane-Finch murder

A jury has acquitted two Toronto men in the 2007 murder of Allan Benn in a northwest Toronto housing complex, leaving a courtroom awash in emotion.

Shaun Blake and Mackel Peterkin, both 20, had faced charges of first-degree murder.

"Thank you Jesus!" shouted Peterkin's mother on Friday after the jury filed out. "This is what happens when you pray!"

Family members of both mean wept and danced for joy.

"I'm speechless ... I have no words," Blake said as he walked out of the courthouse into the warm sunshine.

"The justice system worked," Peterkin said.

"This is an extremely weak case that should never have been prosecuted in the first place," said defence lawyer Daniel Brown.

Two young offenders were also charged in connection with the killing of Benn. They will be tried separately in youth court this fall. Provisions in the Youth Criminal Justice Act prevent them from being named.

The Crown had argued during the trial that the accused killed Benn for "snitching" because he had warned a man who had won $1 million in a lottery that he might be a target for robbery if he returned to the neighbourhood.

Eventually, the robbery did happen.

Benn lived with his family in the Jane and Finch area.

Security footage from April 2, 2007 -- the day Benn died -- showed the victim walking towards a youth, then following that person out of camera range.

Blake and Peterkin were evident in some of the video footage.

Less than five minutes later, Benn comes back into view and falls down.

The Crown had argued that one youth actually did the stabbing, with the other three helping him carry out the attack.

The defence argued that the Crown had failed to provide enough evidence against Blake and Peterkin.

Det.-Sgt. Frank Skubic, the lead homicide investigator on the case, acknowledged that the evidence at trial was largely circumstantial but maintained there was adequate grounds to lay the charges in the first place.

"I respect the decison of the jury. They gave careful consideration and rendered the appropriate verdict," Skubic said.

The veteran officer added that Allen Benn's father was made aware of the verdict and was "very disappointed." The family reportedly couldn't bear the emotional strain of attending court.

With files from CTV Toronto's Chris Eby

Obstruct Police

Obstructing Police Charges in Toronto, Ontario.

This article reviews legal information about obstructing police charges in Toronto, Ontario. Those looking for advice on this, or any criminal charge, should consult a criminal lawyer.

Obstructing Police

It is a crime in Canada to resist or intentionally obstruct a police officer in the lawful execution of his duty.

What is the definition of “obstruction”?
The definition of "obstruction" that has generally been applied by the court occurs when a person makes it more difficult for the police to carry out their duties. It is generally not an offence to argue that the police were eventually able to carry out their duties despite the attempt to obstruct them from doing so.

What does the Crown Attorney need to prove to show a person obstructed the police?
Generally, the Crown must first prove that there was an obstructing of a police officer. They must also prove that the police officer was acting pursuant to a lawful purpose. Next the Crown must prove that the obstructing affected the officer in the execution of a duty that he was then executing, and lastly they must prove that the person who obstructed the officer did so intentionally.

Someone who unintentionally obstructs a police officer by accidentally (as opposed to intentionally) providing the officer with false information would not be guilty of this offence.

Would giving a false name or identification to the police amount to an obstruction?
It depends on the circumstances of the case. Where the police are entitled to request a person’s name, it is incumbent on that person to provide a truthful answer to the question. A false answer may constitute an obstruction. However, in some cases, the police officer had no right to request a person’s identification. In those circumstances, it can be argued that they were not “in the lawful execution of their duty” as required by section 129 of the Criminal Code. Whether the officer was in the lawful execution of their duty is ultimately a question for the judge to decide at an accused person’s trial.

Would refusing to give my identification to the police amount to an obstruction?
Once again, context is important. If a person is under a legal obligation to provide identification (such as to allow the officer to issue a valid ticket for speeding etc.) the failure to provide identification may amount to an obstruction of the police officer. However, if an officer simply demanded identification without lawful authority to do so, it would not meet the definition of an obstruction.

What is the punishment for obstructing a police officer?
It is difficult to guess at the type of punishment a person could receive for obstructing a police officer. In some cases, a person may be given a criminal record, placed on probation or given a fine. In more serious cases, or where the person has related criminal history, the punishment could amount to jail time.


If you or someone you know has been charged with obstructing a police officer, you should immediately contact a criminal lawyer to determine your best defence to this type of criminal charge. I can be reached for a free consultation at 416.297.7200.


BACK TO FAQ
BACK TO HOME

Retooling the war on gangs and guns

Retooling the war on gangs and guns
125 suspects arrested in latest operation, but police vow to focus on worst offenders
April 02, 2009
BETSY POWELL
AND MICHELE HENRY
STAFF REPORTERS

It is almost a springtime ritual.

Hundreds of police officers from various forces fan out in pre-drawn raids across Greater Toronto and beyond to execute search warrants, arrest scores of people and lay dozens of drugs, weapons and gangsterism charges after a massive investigation that has a catchy name – in this case, Project Fusion.

A news conference follows with pronouncements made about the fruits of the law enforcement project, including the 40 guns seized yesterday, which police said will deal a "significant blow" to the firearm supply in east Toronto and make the streets safer.

As well, millions of dollars' worth of illicit narcotics, including cocaine and marijuana and ecstasy, were seized during several months of investigation, not just yesterday.

The Toronto Police Service says this time it is trying to do some things differently in its latest salvo in the war on guns and gangs.

Police Chief Bill Blair said that as the accused move through the courts a more streamlined process is planned aimed at avoiding some of the problems of previous projects that have targeted street gangs.

"The people who we arrested ... some of them are charged with less serious criminal offences so some of those people have been released or will be released over the next few days. Our intent is to ensure the detention of those people who pose a risk," Blair told a news conference at police headquarters.

In June 2007, Superior Court Judge Ian Nordheimer blasted the Crown for delays in bail hearings for nine accused street gang members caught in the Project Kryptic sweep. To show his disapproval of the delays, Nordheimer ordered the Crown to pay each of the defendants' court costs of $2,000.

Blair would not specify how many of those busted yesterday "pose a risk," but said 46 of the 125 people arrested are alleged to be members and associates of two gangs in southeast Toronto – the MNE, named for the geographic area of Markham Rd. and Eglinton Ave. E., and 400 Crew, named for the Toronto Community Housing buildings at 400 McCowan Rd.

In addition, police arrested others belonging to an "overarching criminal enterprise that supplies weapons and drugs to the street gangs." Blair said that group does not have a name but "they have been extremely well organized and sophisticated in their operation."

Police did not release any names of the people arrested yesterday.

One of the sharpest criticisms of previous projects has been that police arrest too many people and lay too many charges, many of them not serious, putting additional strain on an already overburdened court system.

Critics have also condemned such projects for being essentially public relations exercises that generate a lot of media attention because of the sheer numbers of charges laid.

"Usually these types of cases start with the police boasting about countless arrests only to see the numbers scale down drastically in the days and months leading up to trial," defence lawyer Daniel Brown said yesterday.

Yesterday's sweep did not zero in on a particular place or neighbourhood, unlike previous projects such as Kryptic, which was aimed at dismantling the Driftwood Crips in the Jane and Finch community, or Project Flicker, which targeted the Ardwick Bloods in the Islington and Finch area.

Project Fusion dovetailed two separate investigations by Toronto and Durham Region police that had, as a common "focal point," a place called Supreme Auto Group, which was identified as a "significant distribution point for firearms and for controlled substances," said Durham Regional Police Supt. Jim Douglas, who also attended the news conference.

Other police leaders in attendance acknowledged this project will not end the existence of street gangs and the associated violence.

'Unprecedented' raids jolt city

'Unprecedented' raids jolt city
125 Arrested

Melissa Leong, National Post; With files from Shannon Kari, National Post and Global News

Police have arrested 125 people, including the alleged leaders of a "sophisticated" criminal enterprise that supplied drugs and guns to street gangs, after pre-dawn raids throughout the Greater Toronto Area yesterday.

"This is an operation of unprecedented scale," Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair told reporters.

"Nearly 1,000 officers from right across Ontario were involved in the execution of those warrants today."

The suspects and their neighbours were jolted awake yesterday beginning at about 5 a. m. when tactical units busted into homes, allegedly seizing guns and drugs. The investigation, dubbed Project Fusion, was led by the Anti-Guns and Gangs Task Force, which brings together a team of Crown attorneys and police.

Chief Blair said police focused on two street gangs: MNE (named after the Markham Road and Eglinton Avenue East area) and the "400 Crew" (which takes its name from 400 McCowan Rd.) They also arrested individuals involved in an "over-arching criminal enterprise," Chief Blair said.

"[The enterprise] exercised a great deal of influence and control over street gangs and supplied drugs and guns to them," he said. "They don't have a name but they have been extremely well organized and they are sophisticated in their operation."

Officers seized 40 firearms and drugs including 43 pounds of cocaine and more than 30,000 tablets of Ecstasy.

Four of the guns seized were stolen from a legal handgun owner a few months ago, Chief Blair said. Most of the firearms had been smuggled from U. S. states including Georgia, Michigan and Texas.

The investigation began last year. In May, Durham Regional Police were probing a shooting near Brock Road and Bayly Street in Ajax. Officers say that they were drawn to activities at the Supreme Auto Group shop at that corner and discovered that Toronto's Guns and Gangs Task Force was also investigating the premises.

It was identified as a "significant distribution point for firearms and controlled substances," Chief Blair said.

Project Fusion is the latest in a series of major police operations targeting alleged gang activity in the city. Defence lawyer Daniel Brown suggested that police often arrest more people than necessary during these types of operations.

"They cast this huge net on the entire community. Slowly but surely they cut [certain people] loose but not before they have been tarnished with a reputation that they are a gang member," said Mr. Brown, who has represented several individuals arrested during high-profile raids.

"The reality is this overwhelms an already overwhelmed system. It creates a huge amount of delay in the Toronto courts."

Chief Blair told a press conference yesterday: "We're not trying to clog up the courts. We're not trying to clog up the detention facilities. What we are trying to do is hold people accountable for their conduct ... but also to protect our communities."

He acknowledged that those charged yesterday with lesser offences would soon be released on bail. "It is our intention to seek only the detention of persons who we believe represent a significant threat to the security of our communities or a flight risk."

Toronto defence lawyer John Struthers has also represented defendants in the street gang probes in Toronto and is skeptical that they successfully result in the prosecution of high-level criminals.

"There will be young people standing in line to replace those arrested today. Kicking in 100 doors isn't going to mean more people will come forward on the next homicide," he said.

Yesterday, individuals were cleaning up the aftermath of the raids. One woman who did not want to be named led reporters around her sixth floor apartment unit at 3171 Eglinton Ave. E., where clothing was strewn everywhere.

"Look at this," she lamented. "This is how they treat the poor people."

Tina Jaunvin said a loud bang woke her husband just before 5 a. m. "That turned out to be the battering ram on the house next door," she said.

The family watched as many as 10 armed officers search the neighbour's bungalow for hours. They removed bags and boxes and arrested a teenaged resident.

"It was scary but it [felt] safe because you know there's a lot of police around," said Mrs. Jaunvin who has lived on Sedgemount Road, in the Markham Road and Lawrence Avenue area, for 22 years.

"This is a quiet neighbourhood. I've never had any bad experiences with [the people] next door."

---------

PROJECT FUSION, BY THE NUMBERS

125 people arrested

100 homes raided

61 vehicles searched

1,000 officers involved

38 police tactical units involved

34 handguns seized

2 loaded AK-47s seized

1 MAC-11 machine pistol seized

1 sawed-off shotgun seized

2 rifles seized

43 pounds of cocaine seized

65 pounds of pot seized

30,000 tablets of Ecstasy seized

$431,000 in criminal proceeds seized

12 motor vehicles seized

Fail to Appear for Court

This article is a brief and general overview reviewing legal information about failure to appear charges in Toronto, Ontario (aka. What happens when I miss my court date?). Those looking for advice on this or any criminal charge should consult a criminal lawyer.

Generally, it is a criminal offence to fail to appear in court as directed by a judge or to fail to appear for fingerprints and photographs as directed by a police officer pursuant to a valid court order.

What if I forgot my court date? Am I still guilty of failing to appear?
No. The act of failing to appear for court or at the police station for prints and photographs must be intentional. Therefore the crown must prove that you KNEW you had to attend and you chose not to. Forgetting your court date (even if you were negligent by not writing the date down etc.) will not meet the standard necessary for a conviction.

What If I intended to miss my court date but I had a really good reason for doing so?
In some circumstances, the court will accept a lawful (read: very good) excuse from an accused person as to why they missed their court date. Attending a job interview or being “hung over” are not likely considered lawful excuses. A lawful excuse usually requires that it would have been impossible for the accused person to attend the appearance. An example of a lawful excuse might be that the accused person was in the hospital with a significant medical condition that prevented them from being able to attend the court appearance. Another example of a lawful excuse may be that the accused person was in jail on another charge and couldn’t physically attend the appearance as required.

What happens if I just realized that I missed my court date? What do I do now?
What usually occurs when a person misses court is that the judge issues a warrant for their arrest. In the circumstance when the person misses their appearance for photographs and fingerprints, the police will issue the warrant.

Is it possible to have the warrant for my arrest for failing to appear cancelled?
It is possible (depending on when the warrant was issued) to have the warrant cancelled. Usually after two or three days, it will no longer be possible to have the warrant cancelled by the judge. In this instance, the defence lawyer will make arrangements to have the accused person surrender themselves to police to have the warrant processed.

If I surrender myself, will I still be charged with failing to appear in court?
Not necessarily- in some instances, a defence lawyer may be able to convince the police officer that the accused person simply forgot the date of their appearance and that the charge of failing to appear in court should not be laid.

What will happen to me after I surrender myself to the police for failing to appear?
In almost every instance, a person charged with failing to appear will be required to attend the police station for processing and will then be brought to the courthouse for a bail hearing. If a charge of fail to appear has not been added by the police officer, the accused person will likely be released back on the terms of their previous release associated to their underlying offence (for which they failed to appear). In other cases an accused person may have to go through the process of obtaining bail on the new charge and also risk the possibility of losing their bail on the underlying charge for which they failed to appear.

What are the penalties for failing to appear in court?
In some cases, it is possible to be found guilty of failing to appear and not receive a criminal conviction. However, many judges will impose jail sentences up to a maximum of six months for the offence. Regardless of what the penalty is, a finding of guilt for failing to appear in court will be a significant factor at any future bail hearing when deciding whether or not the accused person should be released on bail.

If you or someone you know has been charged with failing to appear for court, you should immediately contact a criminal lawyer to determine your best defence to this type of criminal charge. I can be reached for a free consultation at 416.297.7200.

Fail to Comply with Bail

Generally, it is a criminal offence to violate any valid condition on a recognizance of bail, undertaking to a police officer, probation order, or peace bond.

What does the crown need to prove in order to establish the offence of failing to comply?
To establish guilt, the crown must prove that the accused was bound by the order setting out the condition (meaning that the court order hadn’t yet expired), the accused breached the condition set out in the order, and that the accused person intended to violate the condition in the order. Therefore, if the accused accidentally violated a condition of his bail he would not be guilty of the offence.

For example, if the accused was required to remain 500 metres from a specific address and was found 480 metres from the address, it may be open to him to argue that he wasn’t aware he had breached the distance condition of his bail. If believed, the accused would be found not guilty of the offence.

What if I had a good reason for violating my bail condition?
In some circumstances, it may be impossible for an accused person to comply with a condition of his/her bail. For example what if the accused was not permitted to leave their residence after 11:00pm and at 12:00am, the accused got very ill and had to go to the hospital? In this instance, the court may accept that notwithstanding the fact that the accused was in violation of their bail condition to remain inside, they had a reasonable excuse for leaving and would therefore be found not guilty. In such circumstances, it is for the accused to convince the judge on a balance of probabilities of the validity of the excuse in order to be found not guilty.

What if I was violating my bail condition and I don’t have a good reason for doing so? Should I just plead guilty?
Quite often, the Crown Attorney is unable to prove that an accused person was actually violating their bail condition as alleged by the police. Sometimes the Crown is missing the proper witnesses to prove the case while there are other times where the Crown does not have the required documents necessary to establish that the accused person was on a bail in the first place. Pleading guilty to this type of offence can not only lead to a jail sentence (even for a first time offender) but it can also be a significant factor in denying bail for a future offence (since it will be proven that on a prior occasion, the accused person did not comply with a condition of their bail and are therefore likely to disregard future court orders in the same manner). A decision to plead guilty should not be made until the accused person has reviewed all of the evidence in the case with his defence lawyer to determine what, if any defences to the charge, are available to him.

What if my constitutional rights were violated? Will I still be found guilty of the offence?
In some circumstances, the fact that the accused person was illegally stopped and searched by police which lead to the discovery of the bail violation may in fact be a possible defence to the charge. I have represented a number of accused persons who have been found not guilty of violating their bail conditions, notwithstanding the fact that technically they were doing something their bail prohibited them from doing. Ultimately, if the police had no legal basis for detaining and questioning the accused, the Court will generally rule that the evidence derived from the illegal encounter should not be used as evidence in the trial. Quite often, without this evidence, the Crown Attorney is unable to prove the case.

If you or someone you know has been charged with failing to comply with bail or other court order, you should immediately contact a criminal lawyer to determine your best defence to this type of criminal charge. I can be reached for a free consultation at 416.297.7200.

Possession of a Weapon for a Dangerous Purpose

It is an offence in Canada to possess a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public’s peace or for the purpose of committing a criminal offence.

What is a weapon?
There are some items such as “firearms” and a list of other illegal objects including brass knuckles or cross bows that will always meet the definition of a weapon in law. Other items, such as a pocket knife or hunting knife require that the item be, “used, designed to be used or intended for use in causing death or injury to any person or for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person” to meet the definition of a weapon. The Crown Attorney must prove that the item meets this definition or fall within a list of prohibited weapons in order to establish that the item is a weapon.

What is considered a purpose dangerous to the public’s peace?
A purpose dangerous to the public’s peace includes a disruption of the “normal state of society” and a disturbance of “the general peace and order of the realm as provided for by law”. It is an, "unquiet and harmful behaviour towards the Queen and her people" according to various legal definitions.

What if I am not found with the weapon in a public place?
The possession by the accused of weapons in their own home or a private place does not preclude a finding of a purpose dangerous to the public peace. This is so even if there is a use of the weapon giving rise to the charge, which use takes place entirely in private.

What if I was extremely intoxicated at the time I possessed the weapon? Is intoxication a defence to this offence?
The Crown must show that the accused person not only possessed the weapon, but also possessed it with the added purpose of disturbing the peace or committing a crime. If the accused was too intoxicated to form the specific intent required to commit the full offence, he will be found not guilty.

What if I originally possessed the weapon for a lawful purpose but later used it as a weapon? Will I be found guilty of the offence?
A person who uses an item they otherwise lawfully possessed as a weapon may not be found guilty of possession for a dangerous purpose (however they may be found guilty of another offence such as assault with a weapon). Unpremeditated use of a weapon otherwise possessed for a lawful purpose does not necessarily reflect possession for a purpose dangerous to the public peace.

Is it okay for me to possess a weapon for self-defence?
There is no clear answer to this question. Some courts have held that the possession of a weapon solely for self-defence reasons does not trigger the offence of possession for a purpose dangerous to the public. However, this view is not unanimous and many trial judges have come to the exact opposite conclusion. Ultimately, this becomes a very fact specific analysis.

Can I argue that I was illegally searched by the police?
Many cases of possession of weapons are won on the basis that the evidence obtained by the police are excluded from evidence at trial as a result of an illegal search, stop or interrogation by police officers which lead to the discovery of the weapon. I have won a number of cases for clients using this type of argument. 

What are the types of punishments I can face for this type of offence?
The sentences for possession of a weapon dangerous to the public can range to a maximum 10 years in prison if the Crown proceeds by indictment or a maximum six months in jail if the crown proceeds by summary conviction. Notwithstanding these penalties, the reality is that a first time offender or someone with a minor record may be able to avoid jail or a criminal record altogether with the right representation.

If you or someone you know is charged with possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, you should immediately contact a criminal lawyer to determine your best defence for this type of criminal charge. I can be reached for a free consultation at 416.297.7200.

Communicating For the Purpose of Prostitution

Is it a crime in Canada to engage in prostitution or to obtain the sexual services of a prostitute?

Yes. Either stopping or attempting to stop a person in order to communicate for the purpose of prostitution or alternatively, communicating or attempting to communicate for the purpose of prostitution will be sufficient to ground a conviction for the offence. This means that both the prostitute and the person seeking the prostitute’s services can be found guilty of this offence.

What if I wasn’t successful in my attempt to obtain a prostitute’s services?
It is not necessary to be successful in one’s attempt to communicate for the purpose of prostitution. Merely attempting to communicate with a prostitute is sufficient to be convicted of the offence.

What if I was asking the prostitute how much s/he charged out of curiosity and NOT with the intention to solicit their services as a prostitute?
The Crown must prove as a fact that it was the intention of the accused person to solicit services for the purpose of prostitution. The accused must be “serious”. S/he must mean what s/he says and be willing and ready to carry out the transaction. Simply being curious or joking is permitted under the legislation and is not evidence of the required intention to communicate for the purpose of prostitution.

Can I be found guilty if I tried soliciting an undercover officer who wasn’t actually a prostitute?

The act of solicitation does not only apply to prostitutes, but to all people. Therefore, one can be found guilty of the offence of prostitution even if the person they were attempting to solicit to have sexual activity was an undercover officer.

Must there be a monetary transaction for the offence of communicating for the purpose of prostitution to be completed?
No. Money does not have to be tendered for the offence of communicating for the purpose of prostitution to be complete. All that is required is an intention to engage in the sexual act. Discussion of money and the ability to pay are only some of the factors the court will consider when determining whether a person actually had the intention to communicate for the purpose of prostitution.

What will happen to me at court if I am charged with this offence?
In some cases, a first time offender may be eligible to participate in a counseling program, which, if successfully completed will result in a withdrawal of the charge by the Crown attorney. These types of programs are often referred to as “diversion” programs as they are created to divert accused persons out of the justice system without criminal records.

What type of program must I attend (assuming I am eligible) and how is eligibility for the diversion program determined?
The diversion program an accused person is required to attend before their charge of communication for the purpose of prostitution is withdrawn is usually a one-day session, which discusses the risks associated with this type of criminal behavior. The program itself costs several hundred dollars (approximately $500 depending on the courthouse). Typically, those who do not have prior criminal records or related arrests will be eligible for this diversion program. Eligibility is determined by the Crown Attorney’s office- usually with the assistance of a criminal defence lawyer acting on the accused person’s behalf.

If I am eligible for and complete the diversion program, will I have a criminal record?
No. This type of counseling program was created to ensure that if an accused person successfully completes the program they would not have a criminal record of any kind.

What if I am not eligible for the diversion program?
At this stage, an accused person will have to decide based on the evidence whether or not they wish to take the case to trial or plead guilty.

What are the possible penalties for communicating for the purpose of prostitution?
An accused person may be given a range of sentence starting with a discharge (not considered a criminal record) all the way up to six months in jail depending on the seriousness of the offence, the criminal record of the accused person and a number of different factors the judge will consider at the time of sentencing.

If you or someone you know is charged with communication for the purpose of prostitution, you should immediately contact a criminal lawyer to determine your best defence to this type of criminal charge. I can be reached for a free consultation at 416.297.7200.

Mother cleared in gang probe

Crown withdraws more accusations against those arrested in raid on alleged MS-13 members

Jan 27, 2009 04:30 AM
BETSY POWELL
COURTS BUREAU

The Crown has withdrawn more than 30 drug-related charges against a young mother arrested as part of last year's high-profile takedown of suspected MS-13 gang members.

Rosa Martinez-Cabrera, 24, spent more than five months in pre-trial custody, leaving her baby in the care of her in-laws, before she was released last fall.

Yesterday, the woman shook her head and declined to comment as she pushed a baby stroller outside the Old City Hall courtroom.

"I should sue," she said to her lawyer, Daniel Brown.

Brown said the circumstances are unfortunate, since Martinez-Cabrera spent "close to six months in pre-trial custody, a young child was taken out of her arms, and they fought her at all stages for her release."

Then, in the end, the Crown "realized they didn't have a case."

Her boyfriend, Douglas Moreira, 28, yesterday pleaded guilty to one count of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

Judge Robert Bigelow sentenced Moreira to 24 months in prison, but gave him two-for-one credit for the eight months he had spent in custody, so Moreira must serve an additional eight months.

Both Martinez-Cabrera and Moreira forfeited claim to $30,000 seized during the raids; Brown told court there is no admission the money belonged to either of them.

Federal prosecutor Antoinette Issa also withdrew charges against another co-accused yesterday.

Now only one accused remains in what defence lawyers say is the embarrassing collapse of the case that made headlines in 2008, when Toronto police said they had taken steps to dismantle a local faction of the MS-13, one of the world's most vicious gangs.

"Gang investigators have stamped out the first wisps of smoke signalling the arrival of a notoriously violent street gang with U.S. and Central American roots," said a Toronto police news release.

"It was a lot more talk than actual show on the part of the police," said Brown.

"Where is it? Where is the gang they brought down? ... This was police officers rushing an investigation here, far below the standards that could possibly meet a conviction for participating in a criminal organization."

In a series of pre-dawn raids last June, Toronto police arrested 17 people they suspected of belonging to the Central American criminal organization.

Five were charged with plotting to kill a jail guard at Toronto West Detention Centre, but last fall the Crown stayed the murder conspiracy charges against four of the accused.

The Crown has also stayed the charges against the four of uttering death threats and belonging to a criminal organization.

Report laments legal aid snag

Report laments legal aid snag

Most cases go to junior defence lawyers who lack experience, creating 'vicious circle,' authors find

Nov 29, 2008 04:30 AM

Tracey Tyler
Betsy Powell
Toronto Star

The defence of people charged in some of Ontario's biggest criminal cases – as well as millions in public money – is being placed in the hands of unseasoned junior lawyers, some with less than four years experience, a new report says.

More than half of all legal aid certificates issued in complex criminal cases are going to lawyers who have been practising fewer than ten years and lack the judgment needed to conduct trials in a focused manner, according to the report.

The report was released yesterday at a Queen's Park news conference by Attorney General Chris Bentley. It's aimed at moving large cases through the justice system faster and avoiding the fate of a recent corruption trial involving Toronto police officers, which collapsed this year after a decade in the courts.

Bentley was joined by the report's authors, Patrick Lesage, a former chief justice, an
Michael Code, a University of Toronto law professor who once served as assistant deputy attorney general.

After combing through data from the files of Legal Aid Ontario, Lesage and Code found approximately 28 per cent of defence work in big cases funded by legal aid is performed by lawyers with less than four years experience.

At the same time, the legal aid plan is attracting fewer and fewer senior lawyers. Most are unwilling to commit themselves for months or years to cases at rates that don't cover their overhead. The top rate is about $92 an hour.

"We appear to be trapped in a vicious circle: the longer criminal trials become, the less likely it is that leading counsel will agree to conduct them on a Legal Aid certificate; and yet having leading counsel conduct the defence in these cases is one of the solutions to the overly long trial," Code and Lesage write.

Among their 41 recommendations is a call for "enhanced fees" in complex cases, using criteria so restrictive that only "the most able counsel" qualify. Frank Addario, president of the Criminal Lawyers' Association, applauded the general principle of enhanced tariffs, arguing that paying more to lawyers will prove "revenue-neutral."

"What's paid out will be recouped over and over by savings on everything else that drives up the cost of complex cases," he said.

But while Bentley said both he and Premier Dalton McGuinty are determined to have "a faster, more effective criminal justice system," he made no promises yesterday beyond a vague pledge to get legal aid to "a better place." He's focused his attention on less expensive changes, including moving Crown attorneys into police stations to advise police in the early stages of a case.

Doing so, said Bentley, addresses a recommendation by Lesage and Code that police and prosecutors work more collaboratively on issues, including the disclosure of evidence to defence lawyers.

That was one of the troubling areas cited by a judge in the police corruption case that precipitated the report. In staying charges against six drug-squad officers, Justice Ian Nordheimer quoted a letter from RCMP Chief Superintendent John Neily, imploring the Crown to help manage the mountain of documents in the investigation. He got no response. Nordheimer blamed the Crown for much of the delay that led to the stay. The Attorney General has appealed.

Bentley said yesterday Crowns will be assigned to police stations in Toronto, Peel, Ottawa and Windsor.

But some defence lawyers involved in large-scale prosecutions are skeptical.

"The Crown and police can't be any closer than they already are," said defence lawyer Richard Posner. "Police have access to Crown attorneys around the clock."

Daniel Brown said special prosecutors have been involved in the earliest stages of several gang projects, yet Ontario is still experiencing lengthy trial delays.