I have observed a few cases in the adult plea court, and while some cases were quick and short, only one was long. Even though there were various of cases that were dealing with different types of crimes, I saw that the legal system was still fair with their decisions towards the accused. A small case that occurred was R v. Stanley and the type of case was assault which is under section 265.1(a) in the criminal code. The name of the accused was Alloq Stanley, the crown 's name was Mr. Humphrey who was also the crown for the rest of the cases, and Judge Kehoe was present in this case and the rest as well. The facts are that the victim, Stubbins went to bed and there were physical altercations between them while Alloq was intoxicated and fears
…show more content…
Griffin and the type of the case was theft which is section 334 of the criminal code, and she had also violated sec 145. The players in this case were Shauna Megan Griffin who was the accused, Mark Godoy who was the defence lawyer, Mr. Humphrey who was the crown, and Judge Kehoe. This trial was long because the accused Shauna had stolen items from Cosmo Prof, Walmart, Shoppers Drug Mart, and LCBO from May 1st to Oct 5th. She had been on probation from the first time she was caught which was May 1st 2015 when she was stealing alcohol from LCBO and was not to have any contact with Richard Borcha and not enter any lcbo, but had violated that many times. Shauna was also not allowed to leave her home unless there was a presence of surety, but there wasn 't. She had repeatedly stolen items from Cosmo Prof, Shoppers Drug Mart and LCBO when she was not to enter these stores and failed to comply. By completing these actions, she had violated section 733 sub section 1 and had also violated section 265 subsection 2 because she had assaulted the manager at Shoppers and resisted arrest. She had also violated section 733.1 sub section 1 because she was not allowed to attend Shoppers and stole items from there when she was on probation. The amount that she had stolen from all stores totalled to an amount that exceeded $5000. Judge Kehoe then had made a decision to sentence Shauna as guilty since she has violated many sections of the criminal code and not respected the conditions she was to
Griffin and the type of the case was theft which is section 334 of the criminal code, and she had also violated sec 145. The players in this case were Shauna Megan Griffin who was the accused, Mark Godoy who was the defence lawyer, Mr. Humphrey who was the crown, and Judge Kehoe. This trial was long because the accused Shauna had stolen items from Cosmo Prof, Walmart, Shoppers Drug Mart, and LCBO from May 1st to Oct 5th. She had been on probation from the first time she was caught which was May 1st 2015 when she was stealing alcohol from LCBO and was not to have any contact with Richard Borcha and not enter any lcbo, but had violated that many times. Shauna was also not allowed to leave her home unless there was a presence of surety, but there wasn 't. She had repeatedly stolen items from Cosmo Prof, Shoppers Drug Mart and LCBO when she was not to enter these stores and failed to comply. By completing these actions, she had violated section 733 sub section 1 and had also violated section 265 subsection 2 because she had assaulted the manager at Shoppers and resisted arrest. She had also violated section 733.1 sub section 1 because she was not allowed to attend Shoppers and stole items from there when she was on probation. The amount that she had stolen from all stores totalled to an amount that exceeded $5000. Judge Kehoe then had made a decision to sentence Shauna as guilty since she has violated many sections of the criminal code and not respected the conditions she was to