›
To take part in discussions on talkSFU, please apply for membership (SFU email id required).

Ripudaman Singh Malik to sue Province

TiNgLu_SiNgH
edited March 2007 in General
You gotta love this country!

After we finally catch up to the terrorists responsible for Canada's worst case of mass murder/terrorism, we spend millions to build them a courthouse. Then we spend millions of dollars of taxpayer's money to prosecute them. We even pay for their defense with taxpayer's money. After we find them "not guilty" (note: they were not found "innocent"), we spend a few more millions of dollars of taxpayer's money on an inquiry into what happened.

Now get this: we're now going to allow Ripudaman Singh Malik to sue the Province (read: TAXPAYERS) for "malicious prosecution"!! Isn't it the job of the prosecution supposed to me malicious, as opposed to "half-assed prosecution"?

news story

Comments

  • Insatiable
    edited March 2007
    I doubt he'll be compensated; I mean no court would allow a once-suspected terrorist to sue the province. I mean imagine if every suspected criminal sued the province for wrongful prosecution--the system would crumble. Courts recognize this and so does society (this is why we grant the police much more power than the average citizen--because we feel societal protection is important) so I see it as highly unlikely that Malik would (and should) get anything.
  • siuying
    edited March 2007
    i beg to differ.. he's a suspected terrorist not convicted.. and under Canadian Law he is deemed to be innocent until he's proven guilty beyond the a reasonable doubt..

    but about his claim on suing the province.. the society and courts do recognize the fact there are the occassional wrongful convictions which make up 5% of all the convictions.. however they are relunctant to provide any sort of compensation.. and if the government choose to do so.. it is usually in the means of a monetary compensation which in my opinion is inadequate in compensating for mental damages, loss of time and such things. Nevertheless, there hasn't been any type of law set out that a citizen can/cannot sue the court for wrongful convictions or in this case "malicious prosecution"... so this is going to be an interesting case for that matter.. =)

    but i agree on the part about allocation of taxpayer's money.. =.=" i don't see why a new court room had to be built for this particular trial.. frankly any court room would do as long as the trial is carried out in the right manner.. and did any politicians had the decency to ask citizens whether they want their tax money to fund the expenses of hiring a defense lawyer for Malik? *siGh.. that is the unfortunate reality for Canadian government.. run by a bunch of big spenders who can't even spend efficiently... =(
  • Simon604
    edited March 2007
    His son is a lawyer, they obviously have something up their sleeve or they wouldn't be wasting their money to sue.
  • imelting
    edited March 2007
    i dont get why we built a new court room for this specific trial? anybody shed some light
  • siuying
    edited March 2007
    as far as i know.. it's a symbolic thing.. Canada has never had such a case tried here so they want a completely new court room for it.. though on a personal note.. a court room is nevertheless a court room.. i've been there and it isn't that much different from the others.. just more... extravagant.. =.="

Leave a Comment