HTTP/1.0 200 OK
Content-Type: text/html
Roberts' Case Denied By Judge
Pubdate: Wed, 14 Jun 2006
Source: Express (Nelson, CN BC)
Section: Page 4
Copyright: 2006 Kootenay Express Communication Corp.
Contact: http://www.expressnews.ca
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2339
Author: Susan Hollis
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mjcn.htm (Cannabis - Canada)
ROBERTS' CASE DENIED BY JUDGE
Local Paddy Roberts Will Appeal B.C. Supreme Court Judge's Decision
To Allow Feds To Intervene In Emery Charges
Slocan Valley's Patrick Roberts may have lost the fight to prevent
Ottawa's involvement in his charges against B.C.'s Pot King Marc
Emery, but he is willing to take his battle to the bitter end, even
if it means the Supreme Court of Canada. By charging Emery and two
accomplices, Michelle Rainey-Fenkarek and Greg Williams, with
conspiracy to distribute marijuana seeds, Roberts could have
prevented American drug-enforcement officials from charging the trio
with the same crimes, thus preventing their extradition to the U.S.
to stand trial. The Emery plot thickened when Canada's Federal
Attorney General tried to stay Roberts' charges, which would clear
the way for extradition. Roberts argued the federal government had
no place in the legal battle, as the charges were conspiracy related,
not direct drug charges, which would allow for federal intervention.
B.C. Supreme Court Judge Robert Crawford recently dismissed Roberts'
motion to prevent the fed's involvement. Roberts and his legal
council, Nelson lawyer Don Skogstad, feel Crawford didn't give their
argument much consideration.
"There could have been a complete analysis of constitutional law, but
in fact there is just not that much of an analysis in it at all. We
are unconvinced by what we've read in the reasons that our position
is wrong, with all respect to the judge," said Skogstad. "I think he
thought we might see a more rigorous dealing with our argument
explaining perhaps why we were wrong, but you don't see that anywhere
in the judgment."
Roberts thinks Crawford's decision showed a decisive pandering to the
federal government.
"The law does not provide the Attorney General of Canada any
jurisdiction to interfere with this matter," he said, adding he was
not surprised by what he saw as prejudice tainting the case. "It's
not an old concept, this idea of the feds prosecuting. In most of
the history of this country it was the provinces that have
constitutionally held the exclusive right to prosecute criminal law."
Roberts criticized Canada's legal system for not having any avenue
through which to challenge or understand how judges make decisions.
"It's very difficult to sit the guy down and shine a spotlight on him
and say, "what the hell are you thinking about?" he said. "I've
always been a great supporter of the legal system, but in the last
years I have seen it really go into the toilet."
Roberts and Skogstad are pushing to have their appeal tried in the
B.C. Court of Appeals by October.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman