LOCAL NEWS

Manitoba Justice to Challenge Rogue QB Judges

54/365: Serving My Sentence

Manitoba Justice has decided to challenge the controversial sentencing decisions of the two (2) rogue Court of Queens Bench Judges who recently circumvented the will of Parliament by declaring that mandatory minimum sentences for firearms offences were tantamount to “cruel and unusual punishment.”

In the first case, Justice Colleen Suche ruled the offender, notorious Winnipeg gangster Mario Adamo, was not a “free actor” and had “reduced moral blameworthiness” by virtue of a “mental disability” he suffered in a baseball bat attack that occurred at the Hells Angels Club House in June of 2000.

Adamo had been charged and  convicted of possession of a firearm after Police executed a search warrant on his property that netted a firearm, bullet proof vest, ammunition and a “knock off” list of rival gangsters.  The conviction for the firearm offence came with a three (3) year mandatory minimum sentence as prescribed by law.

The Crown sought a five (5) year term.

The sentence, six (6) months time served and probation.

In the second case, Justice John Menzies set aside a four (4) year mandatory minimum sentence for Bryce William McMillan (21), a Brandon offender who plead guilty to a charge of intentionally discharging a firearm into a residence after he blasted a total of six (6) shots at a home occupied by three (3) people.  Four (4) projectiles penetrated the premise.

According to Menzies, McMillan’s status as a victim of bullying was an aggravating factor that significantly affected his sentencing deliberations.

As a result, Menzies set aside the mandatory minimum four (4) year sentence and opted for a one (1) year period of incarceration followed by a two (2) year period of probation.

(Violent, misogynist posts on McMillan’s Facebook account made after the ruling seem to portray him as anything but a victim.)

After reading the sentencing decisions it becomes clear that Suche & Menzies both see mandatory minimum sentences as affronts to their judicial discretion.  They also express a complete lack of faith in our gang infested Federal Prison systems.

Many people alert to this issue suggest these Judges are simply “out-of-order.”

Regardless of the outcome, I applaud Manitoba Justice for being champions for public safety and for challenging the sentencing decisions of Judges who appear to confuse their role in the administration of “Justice” with that of Legislator, Warden, Social Worker and Defenders of the rights of convicted offenders.

Cruel and unusual punishment….I don’t think so.

Let’s hope the Court of Appeal gets it right.

RELATED LINKS:

The Police Insider – “Justice in Manitoba – Slip Sliddin Away.”

The Police Insider – “Justice in Manitoba – Cruel & Unusual Punishment?”

The Winnipeg Sun – Dean Pritchard “Antisocial Media in Carberry Shoot-up Case.”

5 Comments

  1. James you may just be right. Next time we’re in each other’s respective city let’s make good on that wager. Even if I’m wrong, no doubt the conversation and company will be with worth it.

  2. I would take action on that bet.

    There are so many cases that fit into the category it’s a virtual numerical impossibility we couldn’t find a number of cases to agree on.

    Diametrically opposed professions aside, time and experience in the trenches tends to erode some of the barriers that may have previously inhibited our ability to offer a little mutual understanding.

  3. Heh. I suspect you and I could spend many hours over many drinks discussing our experience with judges who represented “real threats to the entire Justice process” and not agree on a single case!

  4. You are correct…

    My assertion is the finding of cruel and unusual punishment was facile justification for a law they simply do not believe in…..

    These cases represent dangerous precedents that present real threats to the entire Justice process….

  5. But of course James you agree that a Justice of the Superior Court, if asked, can rule on whether or not a piece of legislation or portions of legislation are constitutional, right? Your argument here is that Justice Menzies and Suche were wrong and not that they exceeded their jurisdiction and made rulings they aren’t entitled to make. Two separate issues really.

Share your thoughts - we value your opinion!