Legal-The Canadian judicial council ignored black mans grievance of bias & systemic discrimination
Point 1: Disclosure
Counter-Argument: The assertion by the Canadian Judicial Council that Juteah Downey received full disclosure overlooks significant issues highlighted by the Ontario Court of Appeal. The appellate court was particularly concerned about the lack of third-party disclosure, which the trial judge dismissed as irrelevant. Additionally, crucial information such as the name and phone number of a second police officer involved in a potential conflict of interest were redacted. (It is to be noted that another officer who was a lead investigator of the case resigned due to multiple corruption charges) These omissions were critical enough to warrant the endorsement of Downey’s 684 application by three judges.
Point 2: Prior Convictions
Counter-Argument: The trial judge’s decision to impose a 15-year sentence was partially based on an erroneous belief that Juteah Downey had a prior human trafficking conviction. This fundamental misunderstanding mischaracterized Downey’s criminal history, which significantly influenced the severity of the sentence. Without an accurate portrayal of her record, the imposed sentence lacks a fair foundation.
Point 3: Protection of Crooked Cops
Counter-Argument: The suggestion that the case was manipulated to protect corrupt police officers raises concerns about the impartiality of the judicial process. The Canadian Judicial Council’s stance appears to dismiss these allegations without thorough investigation, undermining public confidence in its role as an impartial body.(One ground of appeal highlighted Amber. B statement that she gave her cellphone password to resigned officer Hussein Assade. who later told the crown that the cellphone was LOCKED)
Point 4: Unfair Trial
Counter-Argument: Scrutinizing the accused’s past does not justify procedural unfairness during the trial. The focus should be on ensuring a fair trial based on the evidence presented, rather than prejudicing the accused based on their history. This approach is essential to uphold the principles of justice and fairness.
Point 5: Bias in Review
Counter-Argument : It appears that the Canadian Judicial Council may not have thoroughly reviewed the opinion letter or court transcripts related to Juteah Downey’s case. Such a superficial review undermines the credibility of their conclusions and suggests a potential bias similar to that exhibited by the trial judge.
Point 6: Judge’s Naivety and Sympathy
Counter-Argument: The defense argued that the trial judge demonstrated naivety in interpreting corroborative evidence and showed excessive sympathy towards the complainants. These factors suggest a lack of impartiality and an imbalance in weighing the evidence, which compromised the fairness of the trial.
Point 7: Perception of Bias
Counter-Argument: The Canadian Judicial Council’s dismissal of perceived bias as presented by the media and the accused reflects a disconnect with public sentiment and the experiences of those directly involved in the case. Recognizing and addressing these perceptions is crucial for maintaining the integrity and trustworthiness of the judicial system.
Point 8: Ignoring Defense Evidence
Counter-Argument: When a seasoned lawyer with extensive experience as both Crown and defense counsel asserts that the trial judge “repeatedly and constantly” ignored evidence favorable to the defense and unfavorable to the crown , it warrants serious consideration. The Canadian Judicial Council should have conducted a more thorough and impartial investigation to address these substantial claims of judicial bias and misconduct.
In summary, the arguments presented against the Canadian Judicial Council’s position highlight significant concerns regarding disclosure, judicial impartiality, and the fairness of the trial process. These issues necessitate a more rigorous and unbiased examination to ensure justice is appropriately served.
Canada Court Cases
Systematicracism.ca
