Editor:
Re: Blame those responsible, Aug. 25
Letter-writer Jim Simpson is to be commended for his articulate letter, pointing out the other side of the story, concerning lack of charges from the Vancouver riots.
There has been concern that the police appear to have considerable video and photographic evidence, but are not bringing suspects before the court. Recently there have been several news reports of serious cases being dismissed, not on merit but because defence counsel has successfully argued a breach of charter rights. The most recent was a high-profile drug case in Richmond.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not recognize the rights of the victim, the burden of proof or the rule of law. Regardless of the facts, the charter applies to the law and is supreme when the court accepts any defence argument on a breach of legal rights.
The high courts also support the charter and their interpretations have set binding precedents for the lower courts. With respect to Sec. 10 (b) of the charter, the high court has ruled the police must not only inform the accused of his right to retain and instruct counsel, but the accused must understand this charter warning. This was the basis for dismissal in the Richmond case.
Vancouver Police Chief Jim Chu obviously understands the implications of the charter and is no doubt ensuring that all provisions of the charter are met before charges are brought before the court.
Bill Parrott, Surrey
