Crown counsel rejects accusation about equating Betty Krawczyk with sex offenders

The Criminal Justice Branch has denied that Crown counsel compared environmental activist Betty Krawczyk to sex offenders or a pedophiles.

"The Criminal Justice Branch is confident that the prosecutor who had conduct of this matter performed his responsibilities fairly, with integrity and with full recognition of his professional responsibilities to both the Court and to the accused," the branch said in a statement released to the media.

The Crown relied on previous cases in arguing against Krawczyk's appeal of a 10-month sentence for being in contempt of court.

"In this appeal the Crown at no time equated the facts of Ms. Krawczyk’s case with cases involving sexual offenders nor did the Crown analogize acts of civil disobedience with sexual offences," the branch stated. "During the appeal the Crown relied on two Supreme Court of Canada decisions which establish the principle that an appellate court may only interfere with a sentence if there has been an error in principle, if there was a failure to consider a relevant factor, or an overemphasis of the appropriate factors, or if the sentence is demonstrably unfit. The fact that these cases had involved sexual offenders was incidental and not relevant to Ms. Krawczyk’s appeal."

One of Krawczyk's supporters, Monica Markovici, complained to the Straight in September that the Crown's arguments likened the 82-year-old great-grandmother's environmental protests to the actions of pedophiles.

The Criminal Justice Branch statement was distributed a day after the B.C. Court of Appeal upheld Krawczyk's 10-month sentence for contempt of court in connection with a protest at Eagleridge Bluffs.

She was involved in nonviolent demonstrations to stop the expansion of the Sea to Sky Highway through an ecologically sensitive area overlooking Horseshoe Bay.

On three occasions in May and June of 2006, Krawczyk refused to abide by a court order not to protest in the area.

It was her fifth conviction for criminal contempt of court, according to the ruling written by Justice David Tysoe.

"Her complaint is that she was deprived of a trial by a judge and jury in circumstances where she was in jeopardy of receiving a sentence in excess of six months," Tysoe wrote. "This complaint relates to the manner of her conviction, not to the length of sentence. Sentencing hearings are not conducted by juries and, even if Mrs. Krawczyk’s trial had been before a judge and jury, her sentence would have been determined by the judge alone."

Tysoe's ruling was affirmed by two other justices on the panel, making it a unanimous decision.

Follow Charlie Smith on Twitter at twitter.com/csmithstraight.

Comments

2 Comments

RonS

Dec 4, 2010 at 5:23am

The courts are going to shut up protests against LIbERal bulldozing of citizens rights and concerns but coverup the LIbERal corrupt showcase trials. This is a travesty of lopsided justice. We must have a revolutuion in BC to the way courts act on behalf of citizens vs corporations like our present government and their backers!

glen p robbins

Dec 4, 2010 at 11:12am

From Duhaime.org Libel: A criminal offense defined consistently with common law (civil). In R v Stevens Justice Twaddle of the Manitoba Court of Appeal succinctly described the offence as "character assassination".

KNOWING - that the libelous statement is false and publishing the same. "A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him/her to hatred contempt or ridicule."

Moreover---"A defamatory libel may be expressed directly or by insinuation OR irony."

The general test in law is what a reasonable person would consider libel - this reasonableness relates to a higher standard when the person -- doing the libelling is expected to have greater knowledge of the wrong act.

In this case - if a lawyer -- permits the libel it's worse than if a common person does the libelling. In this case -- crown counsel is expected to know the law - (the reasonableness) although not knowing the law is not a defence.