Playing With Justice

The conclusion?  That someone who has acted irresponsibly in a manner that constituted a direct and dire threat - potential until it becomes a startling reality - can feel entitled to fund their way out of responsibility and justice if they have the wherewithal.  A professional who is a big earner can hire out expensive trial lawyers to defend them. 

Lawyers who have availed themselves of knowledge of legal tricks that confound the law and justice.

Apart from declaring herself innocent of the criminal charges of impaired driving, driving with a blood-alcohol level over 80, and dangerous driving, causing death, Pembroke dentist Christy Natsis hired the professional expertise of two high-rated lawyers to argue her defence and ensure she is not found guilty as charged; charges that she denies paints an accurate picture of her behaviour.

One gathers that the prosecution, in this case the Crown - must prove three things, i) An intentional course of conduct with a motor vehicle ii) By a person whose ability to drive is impaired, or their blood alcohol ration exceeds the legal limit; and iii) In circumstances that creates a realistic risk of danger to a person or property (Giuseppe Cipriano, criminal defence lawyer, Edelson Clifford D'Angelo LLP).

There is more than ample witness testimony from a wide array of sources, onlookers/bystanders, paramedics, police and emergency-room physicians; first-responders all the latter, well seasoned and accustomed to recognizing people under the influence of alcohol; that Ms. Natsis was impaired due to alcohol consumption on March 31, 2011 when she drove erratically and caused a head-on crash, causing the death of Bryan Casey.

Ms. Natsis's main defence lawyer has time and again cast aspersions on the interpretation of the symptoms testified to by all the witnesses for the Crown.  And now Ms. Natsis's legal team has invoked Charter rights violations to encourage Ontario Court Justice Neil Kozloff to examine written arguments from the defence/Crown whether such breaches actually occurred.

It worked for another social figure - Margaret Trudeau - though she hadn't caused the death of another motorist.  And, despite testimony and evidence that should see Ms. Natsis found guilty as charged, claiming that the arresting OPP Const. Ryan Besner lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest Ms. Natsis, and violated her Charter rights with respect to securing legal advice, has prejudiced her case.

The defence lawyers insist, as a result, that breathalyzer tests that registered blood alcohol levels of 211 mg of alcohol and 198 mb of alcohol in 100 mL of blood be thrown out.  Twice the legal limit.  Inebriated?  Indubitably.  Driving while under the influence?  Without a doubt, and well witnessed.  Causing the death of another human being as a result of careless indifference?  You bet.

Guilty under the law?