I don't think the evidence was weak for the AG to allow the Crown to proceed by direct indictment in Laura's case.
I don't think the evidence was weak for the AG to allow the Crown to proceed by direct indictment in Laura's case.
In theory, the standard of 'a reasonable prospect of conviction' applies to proceeding with any prosecution - both by direct indictment and prelim. So while I agree that the case is unlikely to be weak, the direct indictment doesn't indicate it is necessarily unusually strong either. The Crown policy manual makes the point that a 'reasonable prospect of conviction' does not indicate a conclusion that a conviction is more likely than not. In other words, a reasonable prospect does not rise to the level of even being a probability, which is interesting.
Whatever the evidence is it would be nice if it was a bit less subjective than some of the Tim Bosma evidence was. All these months later I still can't shake the sense that the convictions should have perhaps been for second degree murder. Unpopular opinion, I know.