It was discouraging to read your account of my ongoing battle with the Yukon branch of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada.
Just as the prosecution used a police officer to prop up a weak case, your reporter enlisted a “domestic violence researcher” to weigh in on a matter she knows nothing about.
After reviewing all of the evidence in my case, a panel of distinguished judges found that I did not receive a fair trial. They did so in spite of a very high presumption that the criminal justice system treats everyone fairly.
In May of 2011, the prosecution could have resolved an argument by way of a peace bond. Instead they elected to charge me with three serious offences, two of which were alleged to have occurred a year earlier.
For an accused person, the Domestic Violence Treatment Option court is more of an ultimatum than an option. I would have been required to immediately plead guilty to all of the false charges brought by the prosecution.
It is a rare occurrence for a higher court to set aside a jury verdict. Like it or not, the golden thread of a healthy criminal justice system is presumption of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Anything less is a corrupt system.