R. v. of Arc
Tuesday, November 27, 2007 at 00:00
By Marcel Strigberger
I was recently pondering what would have happened had a Charter of Rights similar to ours been around back in the Middle Ages in England. Would there have resulted an Askov case? If so, would this have affected the outcome of the trial of Joan of Arc?
CROSSBOW J.: This is an application for a stay of proceeding against the accused, Joan of Arc, pursuant to the provisions of section 1(b) of the Charter of Rights. The accused is charged with the most serious offence of being a witch.
Her counsel is bringing what has now familiarly become known as a Maskoff motion. The name originates from the highwayman Jolly John, also known as "Maskoff," as unlike his colleagues, he would practise his trade with his mask strapped to the top of his head rather than over his face.
Maskoff was recently successful in having his robbery charges stayed when this court found that his right to have a trial without undue delay has been violated.
The court has set out a number of principles to consider on a Maskoff application in deciding whether or not to grant a stay. Before considering the application of these principles to the case at Bar it would be in order to review
some of the facts surrounding this case.
England and France have been at war for almost 100 years. One day the historians may even refer to this war as "The Hundred Year War." But that is not for the court to decide.
Our forces were doing an excellent job subduing the French until the accused, also known as the "Maid of Orleans," came along. It seems she heard mysterious voices from above telling her that she must lead the French to drive out the English from France, a land we are rightfully entitled to occupy.
The accused then rallied a number of French nobles, including Philip the Fearless, Paul the Pompous, and Seymour the Sleaze. This was a formidable group.
Before long our troops were routed near Burgundy and we were virtually driven out of France. As fate would have it Joan of Arc was captured by some Burundians and handed over to George the Idiot, who didn't quite know what to do with
her. When he found out that she was the Maid of Orleans, he asked her to polish his silver. She was subsequently turned over to our authorities.
As the predictions by the accused of impending doom upon our forces started becoming fulfilled, she was charged with witchcraft contrary to section 4(b) of the Anti-Merlin Act. Subject to the outcome of this application she is to be
tried by this court of inquisition. If convicted she could be sentenced to be burnt to the stake or fined $250, or both.
In considering a Maskoff application, the courts must first examine the length of the delay in question. The accused has been in some form of custody or another for over a year. Her lawyer claims that she spent about two months just polishing the Idiot's silver.
I find a delay of 12 months. I do not accept Crown counsel's argument that the delay of the accused in custody must be weighed relative to the length of the war itself, namely 100 years.
Counsel argues, "What's 12 months in the course of a hundred years?" This court does not have to do arithmetic exercises on a Maskoff application. Perhaps the numerical answer will be decided by another court.
The next consideration is the reason for the delay. Both counsel agree that the courts have been clogged with thousands of cases to be dealt with by limited resources.
There always seems to be money around to fight wars butnever enough around to hire more judges and employ additional judicial facilities.
There are simply not sufficient resources available to handle the myriad of serious offences such as fish poaching and deer hunting, inundating these courts.
The facilities in this jurisdiction are abominable. They were described by the judge hearing the Maskoff case as the worst west of the Volga. Statistics have shown that it has been taking a witch two to three years to get a fair trial by ordeal. Some of the delay even results from the shortage of court staff, as many people are afraid to come near accused witches.
Can this situation temper the rights to a speedy trial of the accused? I do not think so.
The court must also consider whether there was any waiver of the time period by the accused. From the court records it appears that the accused was before the court six times since being charged.
It is unclear what their reaction was when she was asked each time if she agreed to having her case remanded in favor of allowing another pickpocket offence to be tried. Rumour has it that she just shrugged her shoulders and said,"Comment?"
I do not agree with Crown counsel that this amounts to waiver of a speedy trial. Fortunately there is an interpreter present in court for the first time this morning.
The final issue is whether or not there has been any prejudice to the accused by virtue of the delay incurred. The evidence is that the accused as a result of remaining in custody so long has been unable to properly marshall her witnesses.
She indicates that over the months she heard a number of voices which she wanted to check out but she claims that these voices are rather faint now and she could not track them down at this stage.
The court finds that this case is on all fours with Maskoff.
If, as Crown counsel argues this means releasing a witch back onto the streets, so be it. It won't be the first time.
The application for a stay is granted.
We shall have a brief recess now following which we shall deal with the case of Sheldon the Shoplifter.
I was recently pondering what would have happened had a Charter of Rights similar to ours been around back in the Middle Ages in England. Would there have resulted an Askov case? If so, would this have affected the outcome of the trial of Joan of Arc?
CROSSBOW J.: This is an application for a stay of proceeding against the accused, Joan of Arc, pursuant to the provisions of section 1(b) of the Charter of Rights. The accused is charged with the most serious offence of being a witch.
Her counsel is bringing what has now familiarly become known as a Maskoff motion. The name originates from the highwayman Jolly John, also known as "Maskoff," as unlike his colleagues, he would practise his trade with his mask strapped to the top of his head rather than over his face.
Maskoff was recently successful in having his robbery charges stayed when this court found that his right to have a trial without undue delay has been violated.
The court has set out a number of principles to consider on a Maskoff application in deciding whether or not to grant a stay. Before considering the application of these principles to the case at Bar it would be in order to review
some of the facts surrounding this case.
England and France have been at war for almost 100 years. One day the historians may even refer to this war as "The Hundred Year War." But that is not for the court to decide.
Our forces were doing an excellent job subduing the French until the accused, also known as the "Maid of Orleans," came along. It seems she heard mysterious voices from above telling her that she must lead the French to drive out the English from France, a land we are rightfully entitled to occupy.
The accused then rallied a number of French nobles, including Philip the Fearless, Paul the Pompous, and Seymour the Sleaze. This was a formidable group.
Before long our troops were routed near Burgundy and we were virtually driven out of France. As fate would have it Joan of Arc was captured by some Burundians and handed over to George the Idiot, who didn't quite know what to do with
her. When he found out that she was the Maid of Orleans, he asked her to polish his silver. She was subsequently turned over to our authorities.
As the predictions by the accused of impending doom upon our forces started becoming fulfilled, she was charged with witchcraft contrary to section 4(b) of the Anti-Merlin Act. Subject to the outcome of this application she is to be
tried by this court of inquisition. If convicted she could be sentenced to be burnt to the stake or fined $250, or both.
In considering a Maskoff application, the courts must first examine the length of the delay in question. The accused has been in some form of custody or another for over a year. Her lawyer claims that she spent about two months just polishing the Idiot's silver.
I find a delay of 12 months. I do not accept Crown counsel's argument that the delay of the accused in custody must be weighed relative to the length of the war itself, namely 100 years.
Counsel argues, "What's 12 months in the course of a hundred years?" This court does not have to do arithmetic exercises on a Maskoff application. Perhaps the numerical answer will be decided by another court.
The next consideration is the reason for the delay. Both counsel agree that the courts have been clogged with thousands of cases to be dealt with by limited resources.
There always seems to be money around to fight wars butnever enough around to hire more judges and employ additional judicial facilities.
There are simply not sufficient resources available to handle the myriad of serious offences such as fish poaching and deer hunting, inundating these courts.
The facilities in this jurisdiction are abominable. They were described by the judge hearing the Maskoff case as the worst west of the Volga. Statistics have shown that it has been taking a witch two to three years to get a fair trial by ordeal. Some of the delay even results from the shortage of court staff, as many people are afraid to come near accused witches.
Can this situation temper the rights to a speedy trial of the accused? I do not think so.
The court must also consider whether there was any waiver of the time period by the accused. From the court records it appears that the accused was before the court six times since being charged.
It is unclear what their reaction was when she was asked each time if she agreed to having her case remanded in favor of allowing another pickpocket offence to be tried. Rumour has it that she just shrugged her shoulders and said,"Comment?"
I do not agree with Crown counsel that this amounts to waiver of a speedy trial. Fortunately there is an interpreter present in court for the first time this morning.
The final issue is whether or not there has been any prejudice to the accused by virtue of the delay incurred. The evidence is that the accused as a result of remaining in custody so long has been unable to properly marshall her witnesses.
She indicates that over the months she heard a number of voices which she wanted to check out but she claims that these voices are rather faint now and she could not track them down at this stage.
The court finds that this case is on all fours with Maskoff.
If, as Crown counsel argues this means releasing a witch back onto the streets, so be it. It won't be the first time.
The application for a stay is granted.
We shall have a brief recess now following which we shall deal with the case of Sheldon the Shoplifter.
______________
© 2007 Marcel Strigberger. This article CANNOT be copied or reproduced in any way without the expressed written consent of the Author.
Add a comment