Pubdate: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 Source: Globe and Mail (Canada) Copyright: 2014 The Globe and Mail Company Contact: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/168 Author: Sean Fine ABUSIVE TACTICS DON'T JUSTIFY STAY, JUDGES RULE Throwing out serious criminal charges because of abusive prosecution tactics should happen only in rare, shocking cases, the Supreme Court said in ordering a new trial for two Quebec men accused of 22 gun, drug and organized-crime offences. Antal Babos and Sergio Piccirilli were arrested in 2006 as part of Project Cleopatra, an RCMP investigation into marijuana trafficking linking individuals in the aboriginal community of Kanesatake to Hells Angels in Montreal and Trois-Rivieres. The most serious abuse they faced, Justice Michael Moldaver said, was from a Crown attorney who threatened to lay more charges against them unless they pleaded guilty. This was not, he said, proper plea-bargaining - the prosecution had not disclosed its case yet to the men, as it is required to do - but it was far from being enough to justify throwing out such serious charges. "The Crown's threatening conduct, while reprehensible, did not approximate the type of shocking conduct needed to justify a stay," Justice Moldaver wrote for the majority in the 6-1 ruling. "Society has a profound interest in seeing justice done by having the guilt or innocence of [Mr. Babos and Mr. Piccirilli] determined through a full trial on the merits." Justice Rosalie Abella, in a stinging dissent, said the prosecutor who threatened to lay more charges unless the two men pleaded guilty put the public's faith in the justice system at risk. The judge at the men's trial found that two separate prosecutors had abused their rights, one with threats and another by improperly obtaining medical records of Mr. Piccirilli. The judge also found that two police officers had improperly discussed their testimony on a key point involving a firearm ahead of time. Justice Moldaver doubted the police officers colluded, but said if they had, the judge could simply have excluded the evidence about the firearm at issue. He said the prosecutor who had obtained medical records had apparently received them from Mr. Piccirilli's doctor, and had promptly informed Mr. Piccirilli's lawyer about this. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom