Musings —02.20.2019 12:38 PM—
Name withheld at his/her request.
“Response to Adam Goldenberg’s spin on LavScam:
1. Nice try, but this is a seriously flawed and incorrect analysis. As a prosecutor, I can tell you Mr. Goldenberg has it exactly backwards.
2. Attorney-General consent is not a new requirement. It is required for a limited number of specific prosecutions and resolutions in the Criminal Code.
3. The AG’a consent is initiated by the prosecution service, and approved by the AG on the request and advice of the prosecutor – NOT the other way around.
4. It is a legal/prosecutorial decision, not a political one. It is to ensure this limited and extraordinary type of prosecution or resolution isn’t used by the prosecutor too readily, and in inappropriate circumstances.
5. It is a power or tool to be initiated by the prosecutor and the prosecution service – and without the prosecutor’s request, the AG consent is not needed. And therefore, the AG has no need to give direction.
5. The first question that should be asked in any Parliamentary or judicial inquiry is whether there has ever been an occasion where the AG directed a prosecutor and a prosecution service – in the history of this Country or the Dominion – on how to resolve a prosecution, contrary to the decision of the prosecutor and Prosecution Service (I suspect not, and never for a political reason).
6. There may be hypothetical circumstances where the AG may intervene to withdraw its delegated authority to the prosecutor, but those are limited to extremely rare circumstances of prosecutorial misconduct – again, a legal, not a political decision.”