For immediate release:
October 28, 2008
Barrett decries Ontario catch and release justice
Queens Park – “How does one get 43 convictions, gun-related convictions, and still be allowed to walk around free with an AK-47 on the Ontario-government owned Douglas Creek Estates, to walk around behind a school and to shoot up a smoke shack??”
That was how MPP Toby Barrett’s summed up a pointed question to Attorney General Chris Bentley regarding the recent conviction of Don VanEvery for shooting up a Caledonia smoke shop.
“A year and a half ago I told this Legislature about an incident involving a military assault rifle being carried just behind of Caledonia's Notre Dame elementary school,” Barrett stated in his preamble. “Mr. VanEvery then shot up a smoke shack on provincial highway #6 at Caledonia - at the time, he already had 74 previous convictions; 43 of which were gun related.”
In his supplementary question to the Attorney General, Barrett queried why crown attorneys would plea bargain away offences for convicted criminals.
“Well, Attorney General, VanEvery was sentenced to four and a half years in jail just the other day - He’ll probably get out in a year and a half.” reported Barrett. “There was plea bargaining where 13 counts of attempted murder were dropped.
“How can the public respect this administration of justice? Is this another example of your catch-and-release justice system?”
For more information please contact MPP Barrett at 1-800-903-8629
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Tuesday 28 October 2008
ORAL QUESTIONS
Violent crime
Mr. Toby Barrett: To the Attorney General. A year and a half ago, I told this Legislature about an incident involving a military assault rifle being carried behind Caledonia’s Notre Dame elementary school. The Turtle Island News reported that Mr. VanEvery “threatened another man in his late twenties with an AK-47 rifle.” He then shot up a smoke shack on provincial highway number 6 in Caledonia. At the time, he already had 74 previous convictions, 43 of which were gun-related.
How does one get 43 convictions, gun-related convictions, and still be allowed to walk around free with an AK-47 on the Ontario-government owned Douglas Creek Estates, to walk around behind a school and to shoot up a smoke shack?
Hon. Christopher Bentley: I think the member asks an important series of questions. I don’t have all the details about the specifics of the case that he raises, so let’s deal with some of the policy issues. If he asks our position with respect to whether we think handguns should be in greater circulation or lesser circulation in the province of Ontario, I say lesser circulation, and that would apply to AK-47s as well. If he asks whether we need to take a look at the laws that apply to those in possession of firearms, I say absolutely. My colleagues Michael Bryant and Premier McGuinty pushed hard for reverse-onus bail and mandatory minimums for serious gun crimes. Is there more to do? There may well be—
The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary.
Mr. Toby Barrett: Well, Attorney General, VanEvery was sentenced to four and a half years in jail just the other day. He’ll probably get out in a year and a half. There was plea bargaining where 13 counts of attempted murder were dropped.
Minister, the same four-and-a-half-year sentence was given to VanEvery almost a decade ago for selling illegal weapons imported into Canada. Why are your crown attorneys pleading away offences like 13 counts of attempted murder, using an AK-47, a military assault rifle, for a man with 74 previous convictions? How can the public respect the administration of justice? Is this yet another example of your catch-and-release justice system?
The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister.
Hon. Christopher Bentley: People must have confidence and will have confidence that when cases are resolved in the context of the criminal code, and in our courts, they’re resolved on the basis of what facts can be proven and resolved on the basis of what law applies. It is challenging sometimes, when we hear the short question or the headline, to wonder what happened. The crowns begin from the position that public safety is paramount and that’s determined on the basis of what we can actually prove in the court—which is where it counts—and what law actually applies. As far as federal parole law is concerned, I think he and I are happy to have a discussion about that, but we know that I can’t change it. It would have to be the federal government to change that.
|
