The court orders a stay of proceedings in the criminal trial of the former mayor of Terrebonne Jean-Marc Robitaille, due to the misconduct of the Permanent Anti-Corruption Unit (UPAC) and the crown prosecutors, who hid from the accused of information that could affect the credibility of an important witness because of their “will to win at all costs”.
In her judgment rendered Monday afternoon at the Saint-Jérôme courthouse, Judge Nancy McKenna shoots red balls on the behavior of investigators and prosecutors assigned to this file. She denounces “misleading representations”, “false words”, “dishonesty” intended to hide evidence potentially favorable to the accused.
The representatives of the State were in the “search for victory at all costs” and their conduct “violates the rules of the fair game”, according to the magistrate, who therefore orders the stay of proceedings against the four defendants.
Former mayor Robitaille, his former chief of staff Daniel Bélec, former deputy director general Luc Papillon and entrepreneur Normand Trudel were accused of corruption in municipal affairs and breach of trust. They were arrested in 2018 in the UPAC Mediator investigation.
According to the theory of the Crown, two engineering firms shared the public contracts in Terrebonne by virtue of a “directive” from Mayor Robitaille. He would have put in place between 2000 and 2012 a “system of corruption” based on the sharing of contracts and the granting of gifts to senior officials, argues the prosecution.
Jean-Marc Robitaille, mayor of Terrebonne from 1997 until 2016, would have personally benefited from many advantages thanks to this system of corruption, according to the prosecution.
But after the trial began, the defense discovered that police officers and prosecutors from the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions (DPCP) had concealed the existence of evidence, including reports held by UPAC, which could have been of use to the authorities. accused because it affected the credibility of a key prosecution witness. This witness was himself suspected of participating in a corruption and contract-sharing scheme, amid intimidation of his rivals.
When the existence of this evidence was discovered, several representatives of the State engaged in maneuvers to prevent it from being disclosed, underlines the judgment.