Alberta judge acquits man in internet luring case

[JBP]

In this specific case, couldn't he be charged for a "lesser" evil charge like, "sexual interference" or "sexual harrassment"????

If she's underage don't those apply or am I just out of the loop???

 

[scoutfinch]

And then the lawyers started creeping in......
I understand due process and the burden of proof.  I also feel that this is one example that should be one of the reverse onus situations.  Sure change the laws. 
The only thing cited as the reasons for dismissal were the judges findings of fact.  He chose to interpret them as being insufficient.  Not the Crowns presentation, not the police investigation.  I truly hope the Crown appeals this decision, regardless of the career implications for them. 
Special situations demand special measures.  The internet has exploded in the last couple of years, and all facets of law enforcement are having a hard time getting with the program.  The last thing we need is a judge cutting the teeth out of the laws that we have to work with.

I think we agree on a very fundamental point... the laws need to change.  There is no way that a judge could reverse the onus on this without it being successfully challenged constitutionally.  Parliament would have to reverse the onus by way of statute.  I sure as hell don't want a judge making the law on things like this because I think we both know where that would end up.... in the accused's favour. 

The findings of fact can only be based on the evidence presented.  Unless you were at the trial, it would be impossible to determine whether it was the Crown's presentation.
Unfortunately, findings of fact cannot be appealled, only errors of law.  Unless there was a legal error, there can be no appeal. 

I may be a lawyer but NO ONE in my career has every thought of me as a criminal defense attorney.  I am certainly more aligned with law enforcement. I just like to play devil's advocate  > when I come to the defence of a sometimes poorly understood legal system.