Wayne Millard: Dellen Millard Charged With Murder In The First Degree #1

[Carli]

You might think so, but if Canadian law is similar to what is described for US law in Wikipedia,

"It is now possible to be convicted as an accessory before the fact even though the principal has not been convicted or (in most jurisdictions) even if the principal was acquitted at an earlier trial."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_(legal_term)

Section 23 of the Canadian Criminal Code


23. (1) An accessory after the fact to an offence is one who, knowing that a person has been a party to the offence, receives, comforts or assists that person for the purpose of enabling that person to escape.

But then there's this somewhat puzzling addition in Section 23.1

"For greater certainty, sections 21 to 23 apply in respect of an accused notwithstanding the fact that the person whom the accused aids or abets, counsels or procures or receives, comforts or assists cannot be convicted of the offence."

There's an interesting discussion about this controversial subject at a legal blog. I'm not sure if the rules permit posting the link. Generally, the effort is to determine what would be considered aiding and abetting a person if that person is not convicted. Examples are provided such as crimes committed by children statute barred from conviction because of their age. They also describe a very controversial case which bears similarities to this one. In 1975 a guy named Vinette was charged with helping Vincent dispose of a body after the fact (obviously.) Vincent eventual pled guilty to manslaughter and that "confession" was given as evidence to convict Vinette. Debate raged around the question of whether a person could knowingly provide assistance to a person "after the fact" if the crime had not yet been committed. Much more recently, in 2014, in the Huard accessory case, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a ruling that allowed the accessory to be convicted of a more serious offense than the main offender. Mr Huard was convicted as a party to a first degree murder even though the main offender's charge was reduced to second degree murder.

 

[Alethea Dice]

You might think so, but if Canadian law is similar to what is described for US law in Wikipedia,

"It is now possible to be convicted as an accessory before the fact even though the principal has not been convicted or (in most jurisdictions) even if the principal was acquitted at an earlier trial."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_(legal_term)

Under the Criminal Code of Canada:

23.1 For greater certainty, sections 21 to 23 apply in respect of an accused notwithstanding the fact that the person whom the accused aids or abets, counsels or procures or receives, comforts or assists cannot be convicted of the offence.

But it seems to be a grey area and may depend on whether the accused is acquitted or just cannot be convicted. In R. v. Lefebvre, an adjournment was requested until after the accused trial to avoid the risk of the accessory being convicted needlessly.

Crown counsel's argument states "the inconsistency of verdicts has consequences with respect to an accessory after the fact viz a viz the principal because the issue of the accessory's guilt is predicated upon the principal's."

Unfortunately, I haven't yet found what the decision on that one was, but they did refer to the Camponi case.

The Camponi case can be distinguished from the case before me, because clearly the case here is not one where the alleged principal offender cannot be convicted, but I tend to the view that the law can tolerate what the Crown calls inconsistent verdicts, whether the principal can or cannot be convicted. Where, however, the alleged principal offender is indicted separately and is amenable to justice, the interests of justice generally favour trying the case against the principal offender first. If there is a conviction of the principal, that fact may be admissible and shorten the trial to the more pertinent issues of the charge against the accessory. If there is an acquittal of the principal the charged accessory is likely to see his charge stayed. If there is a conviction on a lesser included offence, the accessory will face a lesser penalty, and will not be at risk of suffering a greater penalty than the principal offender.

In the Camponi case, an appeal was turned down because the principal accused could not be tried until further evidence was found.

The situation is quite different when a charge of having been an accessory after the fact is involved. In such a case the principal and the accessory are not charged with the same offence, the charge against the accessory being that of having assisted the other party to escape justice. This offence is therefore subsequent to the principal crime. By its very nature it is subject to special rules. Whereas in the case of several persons accused of the same offence, each may be tried before or after the others, plead guilty before or after any of the others, or be convicted regardless of the decision against any of the others, an accessory after the fact may not be tried or tender a valid plea of guilty until the principal is convicted, so that if the latter is acquitted the accessory must of necessity be discharged.[Emphasis added]

Before concluding, I must note that it is not necessary to consider whether an accessory after the fact can be indicted and convicted, if the principal offender has been acquitted, after a trial on the merits, of the offence with respect to which the accessoryship is alleged. That is a difficult question which raises issues not addressed in the argument before us. In the result, it must await another day and another case for consideration.

 

[Alethea Dice]

So then I suppose she could possibly be pleading guilty, but either can't or will delay until after DM's trial.

 

[swedie]

I don't see how there could be a preliminary hearing to examine the case against a person charged with knowingly assisting those charged with murder, without first establishing their guilt.

Accordingly I'd add another possible reason to forego the PH. - The defendant wants to stall in the hopes that by the time her case comes to trial, there will be no cause for a trial.

Could it be CN will be tried first and the Crown has direct evidence which is so overwhelming to show guilty without a reasonable doubt, she knows the evidence will convict the accused regardless? Once her trial is done the Crown believes the other two accused will plead guilty, saving from having two more trial? Will she plea bargain? MOO.

 

[swedie]

I think if she were intending to plead guilty she wouldn't have asked for a jury. I suspect that skipping the PH is about minimizing publicity and impact on her family.

BBM - If CN were to plead guilty, then there would be no trial for her, just her sentencing.

At this point IMO, it sounds like she is not going to plead guilty, she will have a trial with her defence trying to minimize her involvement, make her out to be a naive, scared, young woman, maybe felt threatened by her bf, maybe she will claim DM got her hooked her on drugs and she wasn't in the right frame of mind, he paid her to help him, who knows what her defence will be but I feel her defence will try and play on the jurors' sympathies. Although their decision is not suppose to emotionally involved, it just may be the defence's last resort. Similar to KH defence showing her as a batter woman with the hope she would get off or a light sentence handed to her. MOO.

 

[MsSherlock]

BBM - If CN were to plead guilty, then there would be no trial for her, just her sentencing.

At this point IMO, it sounds like she is not going to plead guilty, she will have a trial with her defence trying to minimize her involvement, make her out to be a naive, scared, young woman, maybe felt threatened by her bf, maybe she will claim DM got her hooked her on drugs and she wasn't in the right frame of mind, he paid her to help him, who knows what her defence will be but I feel her defence will try and play on the jurors' sympathies. Although their decision is not suppose to emotionally involved, it just may be the defence's last resort. Similar to KH defence showing her as a batter woman with the hope she would get off or a light sentence handed to her. MOO.

I think you may be right Swedie- perhaps due to the complexity of the evidence, she'll be included in the main trial- afterall, they're going to have to prove that DM is guilty of first degree murder to make any sense of CN's charges and any involvement she had would unfold at DM's trial. It may actually be the best thing for her family as well- IMO, CN wouldn't garner as much attention when mixed in with DM & MS's murder trial. May be best for her and her family and skipping a PH is probably easier financially.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://www.annrbrocklehurst.com/tag/christina-noudga

Noudga is pleading not guilty and none of the allegations against her have been proven in court.

In criminal cases in Ontario, the preliminary hearing usually takes place about a year after charges are laid and a year before the actual trial. By waiving the right to her preliminary hearing, Noudga could shave some time off the seemingly interminable judicial process.

If it’s decided that the evidence in one case could prejudice the results of another, that may result in judges ordering some non-standard publication bans, which the press may very well contest. All in all, it’s just a giant complicated head.

Then there’s Noudga’s publicity-shy mother, who cannot be named due to a special publication ban imposed at her daughter’s bail hearing. To avoid being recognizable when leaving and arriving at the courthouse in Hamilton, she wore scarves and sunglasses and, on one occasion a hooded jacket. She may wish to keep court appearances, even those covered by a publication ban, at a minimum.

Thank you, ABro :loveyou: for all your updates!!

 

[MsSherlock]

MsSherlock - Do we know it was the lawyer that advised him to give POA to his mother? Was there a link for that?

Most people would know that a POA is required if you are not available to sign for something. I didn't say the bank put a charge on the property on a whim. I said that I am not surprised that the bank put a charge as that's what banks do !!! As for the farm, maybe that was charged for an outstanding loan, nothing onerous there IMO.

My mistake Tamarind, the article doesn't state that DP instructed him to sign it, it simply says: "Millard signed the May 11 document alongside Paradkar." There's always the possibility that DM was one step ahead of DP and thought the idea up himself-but one would think he had more important things on his mind at that point. Either way, Deepak was obviously present and didn't object.

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2013/06/05/millard_land_deals_beyond_smelly_experts_say.html

On the issue of the 3.8 million dollar charge levied against Riverside. Could be another coincidence- nothing to see here folks...move along moment, but on October 3, 2013 the TO Star reported:
The murder of Tim Bosma, the disappearance of Laura Babcock and the death of Wayne Millard are now officially part of a single, multi-jurisdictional police investigation.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...s_to_dellen_millard_added_to_joint_probe.html

And for some reason, even for the 6 months following DM's arrest, the Banks seem to be kind of cool with everything until the connection between DM and WM's death was made public and cranked up a notch. On October 18th/13- 2 weeks after LE made the announcement, RBC registered 3.8 million security- then a month later that was paid off and another charge went on for 3.1 million. Of course...simply something that wealthy people in jail do? I wouldn't be surprised if RBC froze everything that was WM related when the October news broke. JMHO. Once again, I'd say that any of the big banks would exercise a tremendous amount of discretion for it's millionaire clients. It's never made sense to me that the RBC would register a charge that was going to be paid out in a month by another institution, and when the new charge was registered, it does appear that all the proceeds from one of the condo's went towards it, reducing it to 3.1 million.

Post # 713
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...ard-Properties-Locations-and-Ownership/page29

Maple Gate was liquidated super fast- so at least he had some money to fund his defense! Just supporting my theory that DM may not have the millions WM had and probably never will. MOO

 

[Tamarind]

My mistake Tamarind, the article doesn't state that DP instructed him to sign it, it simply says: "Millard signed the May 11 document alongside Paradkar." There's always the possibility that DM was one step ahead of DP and thought the idea up himself-but one would think he had more important things on his mind at that point. Either way, Deepak was obviously present and didn't object.

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2013/06/05/millard_land_deals_beyond_smelly_experts_say.html

On the issue of the 3.8 million dollar charge levied against Riverside. Could be another coincidence- nothing to see here folks...move along moment, but on October 3, 2013 the TO Star reported:
The murder of Tim Bosma, the disappearance of Laura Babcock and the death of Wayne Millard are now officially part of a single, multi-jurisdictional police investigation.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...s_to_dellen_millard_added_to_joint_probe.html

And for some reason, even for the 6 months following DM's arrest, the Banks seem to be kind of cool with everything until the connection between DM and WM's death was made public and cranked up a notch. On October 18th/13- 2 weeks after LE made the announcement, RBC registered 3.8 million security- then a month later that was paid off and another charge went on for 3.1 million. Of course...simply something that wealthy people in jail do? I wouldn't be surprised if RBC froze everything that was WM related when the October news broke. JMHO. Once again, I'd say that any of the big banks would exercise a tremendous amount of discretion for it's millionaire clients. It's never made sense to me that the RBC would register a charge that was going to be paid out in a month by another institution, and when the new charge was registered, it does appear that all the proceeds from one of the condo's went towards it, reducing it to 3.1 million.

Post # 713
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...ard-Properties-Locations-and-Ownership/page29

Maple Gate was liquidated super fast- so at least he had some money to fund his defense! Just supporting my theory that DM may not have the millions WM had and probably never will. MOO

It makes sense if the bank issued a loan secured by property. The loan would be paid back when properties were sold. By taking the loan MB can take the money and invest it wherever she likes, knowing that the bank will be paid back as soon as the properties sell. Probably a good idea to get the money out first and leave the assets for the bank JMO. I think she is safeguarding her sons interests as any good mother would do. IMO

 

[Juballee]

http://www.annrbrocklehurst.com/tag/christina-noudga

Noudga is pleading not guilty and none of the allegations against her have been proven in court.

In criminal cases in Ontario, the preliminary hearing usually takes place about a year after charges are laid and a year before the actual trial. By waiving the right to her preliminary hearing, Noudga could shave some time off the seemingly interminable judicial process.

If it’s decided that the evidence in one case could prejudice the results of another, that may result in judges ordering some non-standard publication bans, which the press may very well contest. All in all, it’s just a giant complicated head.

Then there’s Noudga’s publicity-shy mother, who cannot be named due to a special publication ban imposed at her daughter’s bail hearing. To avoid being recognizable when leaving and arriving at the courthouse in Hamilton, she wore scarves and sunglasses and, on one occasion a hooded jacket. She may wish to keep court appearances, even those covered by a publication ban, at a minimum.

Thank you, ABro :loveyou: for all your updates!!

I think that it's the mother's right to shy away from publicity, and I don't blame her one bit, personally. If her business may suffer from the bad publicity, she has a right to her privacy, in my opinion. She is not convicted or even accused of a crime, as far as I know, why should she be hounded as the 'criminals' are? Her only crime is supporting her child as any mother would, from what I can tell.

Why do we need to see what she looks like or what her name is? So that if we encounter her in real life we can yell at her, spit in her face, or offer our sympathies? I see no reason she should be subjected to publicity of any kind if she doesn't want it, in my opinion. I feel sorry for her, actually, she's only doing what any proper mother would do, in my opinion, and in fact, isn't she court ordered to accompany her daughter anywhere but to and from school and work? So technically she has to be there, doesn't she? It's a shame she can't do so without fear for her own reputation, I think.

 

[MsSherlock]

It makes sense if the bank issued a loan secured by property. The loan would be paid back when properties were sold. By taking the loan MB can take the money and invest it wherever she likes, knowing that the bank will be paid back as soon as the properties sell. Probably a good idea to get the money out first and leave the assets for the bank JMO. I think she is safeguarding her sons interests as any good mother would do. IMO

We'll agree to disagree on this one Tamarind. IMHO, the timing of the RBC charge coincides with DM becoming a suspect in WM's murder. IMO, LE had probably been getting information about DM & WM's financial affairs from the financial institutions. There's no money to be had when the bank registers a lien to make sure it gets repayment of a debt. IMHO, it's shear folly to think that the RBC gave 3.8 million dollars in cash to MB for DM on a property that sold less than a year later for 2.3 million. They're not that incompetent. I also believe that MB isn't safeguarding her sons interests, she's dealing with the carnage of his actions. MOO

 

[Tamarind]

We'll agree to disagree on this one Tamarind. IMHO, the timing of the RBC charge coincides with DM becoming a suspect in WM's murder. IMO, LE had probably been getting information about DM & WM's financial affairs from the financial institutions. There's no money to be had when the bank registers a lien to make sure it gets repayment of a debt. IMHO, it's shear folly to think that the RBC gave 3.8 million dollars in cash to MB for DM on a property that sold less than a year later for 2.3 million. They're not that incompetent. I also believe that MB isn't safeguarding her sons interests, she's dealing with the carnage of his actions. MOO

Bridge loans are for this purpose. JMO

 

[SnooperDuper]

We'll agree to disagree on this one Tamarind. IMHO, the timing of the RBC charge coincides with DM becoming a suspect in WM's murder. IMO, LE had probably been getting information about DM & WM's financial affairs from the financial institutions. There's no money to be had when the bank registers a lien to make sure it gets repayment of a debt. IMHO, it's shear folly to think that the RBC gave 3.8 million dollars in cash to MB for DM on a property that sold less than a year later for 2.3 million. They're not that incompetent. I also believe that MB isn't safeguarding her sons interests, she's dealing with the carnage of his actions. MOO

The bank would want to make sure all debts associated with the hangar were reclaimed, and then there is the whole issue of taxes on the estate passed from WM to DM. Maybe there is really nothing left. The family coffers were running low before all of this, remember?

I guess being an ex-millionaire doesn't buy a lot of loyalty, so this should make CN's trial exta interesting.

 

[SnooperDuper]

I know that a lot of people are charmed by DM's wealth and breeding, but for me the fascination has always been DM the loser.

Can you imagine losing more than DM? It's possible he's lost a low 8 digit fortune by my estimations, he's lost his freedom, celebrity (prodigy) has been replaced by notoriety (criminal). He had an awful lot, good looks and youth to boot, and he recklessly frittered all this away.

How long before we hear the thunderous cracking noise of DM's head popping? A certain reality is becoming clear. How long can DM live in denial?

 

[Juballee]

I guess being an ex-millionaire doesn't buy a lot of loyalty, so this should make CN's trial exta interesting.

I guess loyalty can only be bought with money? I think that's a sad thought.

 

[Alethea Dice]

The bank would want to make sure all debts associated with the hangar were reclaimed, and then there is the whole issue of taxes on the estate passed from WM to DM. Maybe there is really nothing left. The family coffers were running low before all of this, remember?

I guess being an ex-millionaire doesn't buy a lot of loyalty, so this should make CN's trial exta interesting.

Isn't the hangar and MillardAir an ongoing thing? If they rented out the hangar, the income to MillardAir would go toward the MillardAir hangar debt.

The taxes on the estate would have been on WM's final tax return. Providing there was enough cash/investments/insurance to pay those taxes at the time.

http://www.canadianliving.com/life/money/what_to_do_with_an_inheritance_3.php

 

[Alethea Dice]

I guess being an ex-millionaire doesn't buy a lot of loyalty, so this should make CN's trial exta interesting.

What makes you think that CN was only after his money and will no longer be loyal?

 

[ABro]

I guess loyalty can only be bought with money? I think that's a sad thought.

In DM's case, yes, all his friends were bought and paid for.

There wasn't one friend or romantic interest who wasn't greedily riding the DM gravy train. That says something about both DM and his friends.

He acknowledges this in his Toronto Star interview, where he talks about spending tens of thousands because that's what his "friends" expected from him.

Now some might think as he got older, he got wiser, but, in fact, the opposite seems to be true. He couldn't hold on to friends or girlfriends without footing the bills, letting them live in the basement or his other properties, buying them cars and houses, paying for vacays, etc.

Lest anyone jump in to say DM is a poor little exploited rich boy, please keep in mind there are many wealthy people who maintain genuine friendships with people from all income levels without turning themselves into an ATM.

 

[Juballee]

In DM's case, yes, all his friends were bought and paid for.

There wasn't one friend or romantic interest who wasn't greedily riding the DM gravy train. That says something about both DM and his friends.

I would need to see actual proof of this before it could be taken as a fact, and not just an opinion.

I have yet to see a list of All of his friends, let alone the list of all who have officially abandoned their loyalty to him. I imagine his closest friends are on the no contact list, so how can he know if they show their support or loyalty to him at this point, anyway?

 

[ABro]

I would need to see actual proof of this before it could be taken as a fact, and not just an opinion.

I have yet to see a list of All of his friends, let alone the list of all who have officially abandoned their loyalty to him. I imagine his closest friends are on the no contact list, so how can he know if they show their support or loyalty to him at this point, anyway?

Stay tuned for the trials. Many of the basement dwellers are indeed on the no-contact list so they'll likely be testifying at the Bosma trial.

I can't imagine CN won't be asked about the financial benefits of dating DM at her trial.

And if there ever is a Babcock or Wayne Millard trial, which I sincerely doubt, we will almost certainly hear from the ex-fiancee and her ex-cop mom, who are both on the no-contact lists for those murders.