Case closed

Dr. Dawg was dogged, but to no avail. He would not give up on trying to find out why a B.C. admitted rapist managed to walk without being sent to the slammer.

Read the whole sorry story on how he failed to not only get redacted (with names blacked out to protect the complainant and witnesses) transcripts of the Fernando Manuel Alves' get-out-of-jail-free card, but also couldn't learn the specific reasons why his requests did not satisfy the mysterious criteria needed to obtain them.

Here's the latest exchange:

Dear Judge Rideout:

I am in receipt of a communication from your office dated September 15 with respect to my request for the release of the Reasons for Judgement in R. v. Fernando Manuel Alves.

It is suggested that I state a "bona fide" reason for my request. In case I was too allusive in my first communication, I am concerned about the public perception of the extremely light, non-custodial sentence handed down in this case. That sentence does not, given the facts that are already public, appear to be commensurate with the brutal assault to which the defendant pleaded guilty. Public confidence in the administration of justice can be eroded by such perceptions.

Accordingly, I would like to write an article that provides the other side, if you will. As indicated earlier, I would be satisfied with a transcript that redacted names and identifying information of the complainant and any witnesses.

I regret having not been clearer in my first letter, and look forward to your positive response to this one.

Sincerely,

This morning I received this:

Dear Sirs [sic]:

RE: R. v. Fernando Manuel Alves

Thank you for your correspondence of recent date. I have been advised by the Honourable Judge G. Rideout that a transcript of Reasons for Sentence for your stated reason do not meet appropriate criteria to release the transcript even with deletions of names.

Yours truly,

So there we must leave it. Obviously I was attempting to accommodate myself to the requirements of the Criminal Code provision by expressing my willingness to accept a redacted transcript. No dice.

Instead, with the lordly presumption that too many unelected judges assume once they are elevated to the bench, I was told, second-hand, to get lost. 

So, once more, as a public service and for all the ladies in B.C., Alves' mug. Memorize it.

How about that Roman Polanski anyway?

Comments

[Michael Beaupré]

It would be great if the reason(s) for this kind of sentence were known, but to then jump to say that too many UNELECTED judges are at fault? I don't want justice at the cost of elected judges. The U.S. can point the way here.

[fern hill]

Do we have to leave it there?

I do not live in BC, but I have friends and family there. I visit there.

Shouldn't BC citizens contact their MPPs (sorry if that's not what provincial members are called there) and ask them to ask why a judge who made a questionable -- to say the least -- sentencing decision is the very person who decides whether or not citizens -- half of whom are potential victims of the same sort of crime -- are entitled to know anything of the good judge's reasoning?

OK. That was a complicated sentence. Shorter: WTF?

Antonia, you have colleagues in BC? Doncha think the story of a citizen blogger, the great-hearted Dr. Dawg, being brushed off in his sincere attempt to understand what happened there is a STORY?

This stinks. Stank. Stunk. And still stinks.

And does not endeth here.

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

"Instead, with the lordly presumption that too many unelected judges assume once they are elevated to the bench, I was told, second-hand, to get lost. "

Once again, we can blame liberals for this one. In their all-too successful drive to have courts overrule legislators they have helped to create an arrogant, insufferable class of judge. This is a prime example.

[Dr.Dawg]

Just to let you know, Antonia, that I have decided to press on. I've faxed another letter to the judge to find out precisely what his "appropriate criteria" are. They appear to be something over and above what is specified in the Criminal Code, given that publication bans are intended to protect complainants and witnesses in such cases, and that I have asked for a transcript that is fully redacted in those areas.

I'm not hopeful, but it's worth a shot, at least to provide more information on how judges wield their discretion.