Without belabouring the point, it is essential to understand that the Attorney General of Ontario is a political appointment.
http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/ag/agrole.asp
Her bio amply indicates that Mme Mellieur appears to be a lovely and highly accomplished lady. However, she is a politician who has made a statement about the strength of the prosecution's evidence and the certain outcome of a pending trial(s).
As you see, the potential impact on the trial bears little or no relevance to "pre-trial publicity" or even to the jury selection process. It does have to do with the perception of political interference in due process and abuse of the rights of the accused and perhaps even includes contempt of court. IMO How about the judge? (Another political appointment.) Is he ready to defy the views of the AG? Are we truly ready to endorse such "trials" in this country? Frankly, I don't know how they're going to handle this situation in these particular trials. A very slippery slope, if you ask me, and one of enormous precedent setting importance for the future. IMO. IMHO. MOO.
http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/ag/agrole.asp
Her bio amply indicates that Mme Mellieur appears to be a lovely and highly accomplished lady. However, she is a politician who has made a statement about the strength of the prosecution's evidence and the certain outcome of a pending trial(s).
An important part of the Crown's - and thus the Attorney General's - responsibility in conducting criminal prosecutions is associated with the responsibility to represent the public interest - which includes not only the community as a whole and the victim, but also the accused. The Crown has a distinct responsibility to the court to present all the credible evidence available.The responsibility is to present the case fairly - not necessarily to convict. This is a fundamental precept of criminal law, even if it is not a particularly well-understood concept among the general public. One of the Attorney General's responsibilities in fostering public respect for the rule of law, is to assist the public in understanding the nature and limits of the prosecutorial function.
Ultimately the Attorney General is accountable to the people of the province, through the Legislature, for decisions relating to criminal prosecutions. Such accountability can only occur, of course, once the prosecution is completed or when a final decision has been made not to prosecute. The sub judicae rule bars any comment on a matter before the courts that is likely to influence the matter. The sub judicae rule strictly prohibits the Attorney General from commenting on prosecutions that are before the courts. Given the stature of the Attorney General's position, any public comment coming from the office would be seen as an attempt to influence the case.
As you see, the potential impact on the trial bears little or no relevance to "pre-trial publicity" or even to the jury selection process. It does have to do with the perception of political interference in due process and abuse of the rights of the accused and perhaps even includes contempt of court. IMO How about the judge? (Another political appointment.) Is he ready to defy the views of the AG? Are we truly ready to endorse such "trials" in this country? Frankly, I don't know how they're going to handle this situation in these particular trials. A very slippery slope, if you ask me, and one of enormous precedent setting importance for the future. IMO. IMHO. MOO.