Latest news with #Charter-related
Edmonton Journal
10-07-2025
- Edmonton Journal
Decade-old Edmonton fentanyl lab case delayed again after offender fires lawyer; judge cancels bail
Article content Two men charged in one of Edmonton's earliest major fentanyl busts are still awaiting sentencing after one of the offenders fired his lawyer — further delaying a case that has been on the court docket nearly 10 years. Article content Anthony Neville and Eric MacDonnell were due to be sentenced in Edmonton Court of King's Bench Thursday on counts of manufacturing and trafficking fentanyl. The charges stem from an investigation into a southeast Edmonton drug lab that ended with police raids on New Year's Eve 2015. At the time, city police said the fentanyl seizures were their largest to date. The effects of the deadly opioid — which has since caused the deaths of thousands of Albertans — were only just making themselves known. Thursday's hearing derailed shortly after it began. Neville — who, along with his co-accused, has been on bail pending sentencing — told Justice Kent Teskey he wished to fire lawyer Greg Genest and rehire the defence counsel he previously sacked. Teskey allowed the move, saying Neville is facing a lengthy prison sentence and should be given time to find a new lawyer. However, he refused Neville's request to extend his bail and ordered both men taken into custody. Sheriffs led the two into cells after they gave tearful goodbyes to loved ones in the court gallery. Reason for delays not stated Police announced the arrests in January 2016. At a press conference, investigators said they seized $435,000 worth of drugs from three properties linked to Neville and MacDonnell, including nearly 9,000 fentanyl pills, precursor chemicals, an automatic pill press and thousands of tabs of counterfeit Cialis and Viagra. Neville and MacDonnell — aged 37 and 36, respectively — were found guilty after a trial June 18, 2025. Thursday's hearing did not get into why the proceedings were so delayed, besides citing Neville's earlier firing of his lawyer. The case was also the subject of Charter-related hearings. The Supreme Court's 2016 Jordan decision on trial delays set a 30-month timeline for superior court trials to begin — though charges cannot be thrown out if the delays are caused by the defence. Prosecutor Kurtis Streeper said the Crown sees Neville's decision to fire his lawyer as a potential 'delay tactic,' though he acknowledged Neville appears to be taking steps to hire new counsel. Streeper said the Crown is seeking a 'serious' sentence but did not specify the length. He did not ask Teskey to revoke bail. MacDonnell, meanwhile, was ready to proceed with sentencing and planned to be taken into custody that day, lawyer Lance McClean said. Several family members had travelled from Prince Edward Island to support him. Teskey, however, was not prepared to sentence the men separately and ordered both into custody. He initially allowed the two to remain on bail to get their affairs in order ahead of Thursday's hearing. The case is next in court on July 18 to set a date for sentencing. Recent fentanyl lab cases have led to hefty sentences. In January, Jonathan Loyie, a man involved in what was described as Alberta's largest-ever fentanyl lab, was sentenced to 16 years in prison. Article content Article content
Hamilton Spectator
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Hamilton Spectator
Hamilton police board defer Charter oversight motion, draft policy to governance committee
A Hamilton police board motion that called for greater oversight of officer-involved Charter rights violations has been pushed to a later date. The motion brought forward by civilian member Anjali Menezes was initially left undiscussed when no other board member seconded it at a meeting on May 29. On Thursday, it was back on the agenda after Coun. Cameron Kroetsch — who returned from a 15-month conduct suspension — pledged to second it. Coun. Cameron Kroetsch But also on the agenda was a draft policy, developed by the board, that aimed to clearly identify Hamilton police's responsibilities related to the reporting of Charter rights breaches. 'Rather than spending a long time here trying to go between these two documents and suggest amendments on the floor, it would be more appropriate for the governance committee to bring back one item,' Kroetsch said at the tail-end of an unusually long meeting that spanned over four hours. Members voted unanimously to defer both the motion and draft policy to the board's governance committee. Once reviewed, the committee will consolidate the two documents into one agenda item for the board to consider. A meeting date for the committee wasn't set. At the crux of Menezes's motion was heightened tracking and reporting of Charter rights violations . More specifically, it asked police to provide the board with a list of cases where charges were dropped or evidence excluded due to Charter breaches, an account of how police became aware of those violations and what discipline or training followed. There have been multiple court proceedings in recent years centred on Hamilton officers violating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms while making arrests — including three since 2024. About a week after Menezes' motion went undiscussed, the board issued a news release touting its Charter oversight. In it, the board claimed Hamilton police 'already produce a comprehensive annual report' covering both substantiated and unsubstantiated Charter violations, communicate proactively about breaches and have increased overall training (including for Charter-related issues) more than 700 per cent since 2021. The release came up at Thursday's meeting as a consent item. Two people opposed it: Menezes and Kroetsch. Besides asking chair Don Robertson who wrote the release — he said it was board executive director Kirsten Stevenson — Menezes pointed to a 'disconnect' between the release and subsequent Charter draft policy recommendation. 'The release says the service already has a robust reporting policy and the recommendation report seems to (suggest) otherwise,' she said. Robertson clarified the release was intended to inform the public about how the service addresses and reports Charter violations. He said the ensuing draft policy wasn't a contradiction to that, but rather, 'we wanted to have a crystalized policy (over) something that is ongoing.' Among the key tenets in the draft policy was that the chief work with the Crown's office to identify Charter breaches that are 'believed to involve a police officer not acting in the good faith performance of their duties.' This point was contested in a delegation from Andrew Bell, a retired assistant Crown attorney with more than two decades experience in criminal litigation, including Charter violations. In his experience reviewing hundreds of Hamilton police investigations, he said he never found 'a single case of a Charter violation that I believed involved an officer not acting in the good faith of their duties.' Bell argued Charter breaches happen when police are trying to solve crimes or apprehend offenders. 'In other words, they happen when police act in the good faith performance of their duties,' he told the board, adding Charter violations arise not from an officer's good or bad faith, but 'because of negligence, mistakes, ignorance, stupidity, habit and police culture.' 'If you vote for this policy, you make the mistake of (assuming) that the only Charter violations that matter are violations made by officers not acting in the good faith performance of their duties,' Bell said. 'All Charter violations matter.' Mayor Andrea Horwath, who was present at board for the first time since injuring her wrist, asked Bell if removing that 'good faith' terminology would help improve the collection of Chater violation data. 'Yes,' he responded, 'because all Charter violations matter. Not those that to lead to discipline or not, and not those that are committed in good faith or not.' Horwath argued it's important the board is thoughtful of language in any potential Charter policy. She said if the goal of the policy is to gather Charter-related data to better inform training — and the removal of the 'good faith' terminology helps in that effort — 'then I would think that's something the board would be interested in.' That portion of the draft policy is one example of what the governance committee will look at. The board heard the committee will draft a document based on the draft recommendation and Menezes's motion before members vote on a single policy. No date has been set for that draft to return to the board for discussion. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
