Saturday, January 29, 2011


A man (or something disguised and posing in public as a man) shakes an 11-week old baby causing permanent brain damage.

The child - did we mention? - now has permanent and irreversible brain damage.

The man (or some creature asking us to believe he is a man) acknowledges his deed.

The facts are not disputed.

But Judge Adrian Brooks has found this trash not quilty in the charge of aggravated assault.

"I am not persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that the force used was excessive,” Brooks said.

Excuse me?

What exactly would have had to have happened to register with the good Justice as "excessive?" Flying body parts?

And speaking of aggravated assault, can we sue the good Judge for aggravated assault against common sense, the basic understanding of justice and Canadian jurisprudence?

Next week, my guest on DAVID BERNER on SHAW TV will be retired Justice Wallace Gilby Craig, who will share with us his inventory on how we are doing on addictions, violence, home and auto invasions, gangs, courts, prosecutors and judges.

I will ask him to explain to us all how such a travesty as this can occur in our courts and how it gets less space in the newspaper than a story about a police dog.

1 comment:

diverdarren said...

David I looked at the link you provided to the story in the Vancouver Sun. I admit this is the first I've heard of this, and all the info I have is the story and your blog. But I don't see the element of intent to do harm in the accused. Gross negligence absolutely, but that doesn't make aggravated assault.

Maybe there is more to this than being reported, but the Crown needs to proceed with charges not on what they may know about a crime, but what they can prove about a crime.

Thankfully no one judge has the final say over anything, and if justice wasn't served then it for the Appeals Court.