So far, the shadow trial case raises a lot of questions about the secrecy that surrounds this case involving a police informer. The right to information and to public justice are essential aspects that deserve to be raised.
Posted at 1:00 p.m.
It is mentioned that this file does not include any file number and that there is no written or material trace that remains on the progress of the proceedings, as confirmed by the Quebec Court of Appeal.
In addition to these crucial questions, there are two that have not been raised: 1. How and by whom was the judge chosen? 2. Why did the Court of Appeal maintain part of the secrecy on the name of the judge and the identification of the lawyers in the file?
The question of the choice of the judge is a primordial question since the chief justices of the courts in Quebec say that they have not been made aware of this affair.
How is it possible for a judge to be asked to hold a trial and hand down a sentence without any cog in the judicial machine being involved?
As for the sentence, it is likely to be a prison sentence (probably long), otherwise what would be the reason for having initiated this appeal before the Court of Appeal?
Remember that this is an informer who would be part of organized crime. He was certainly not prosecuted for a peccadillo. Now there is the question of his possible imprisonment.
How did the correctional authorities handle this case? Unless the convicted person has obtained from a judge a release pending the decision of the appeal. Was it the judge who sentenced him or another judge?
Whatever the answer, we are faced with a problematic situation: either a second judge is involved, or the unknown judge has taken sides in a case that concerns him directly.
Criticism “with respect” despite the bewilderment
On reading the judgment of the Court of Appeal, we find that the three judges know the name of the judge, and criticize him “with respect” as if it were a current file!
Thus, despite a firm and unanimous judgment which “pronounces the stay of proceedings”, the three judges of the Court of Appeal do not dare to go to the end of their moral indignation and protect, in part, the judiciary despite a mind-blowing bewilderment . Why ?
Speaking of bewilderment, let’s not forget that last January, Judge Anouk Desaulniers of the Court of Quebec, judicial district of Gatineau, was forced to hold a remote trial while the accused was in the latrines. of a wing of the Rivière-des-Prairies detention centre.
She is not the only one, it seems, since “the visiting rooms of the detainees are in the toilets”, according to a correctional officer. It seems that the judiciary has not made itself heard more than the other players in the justice system.
Perhaps we are at a propitious moment for an overhaul of the penal and criminal justice system?