The Debate continues.....

By André Faust

In an unprecedented move by law enforcement, Social Activist Charles Leblanc was given a court date to enter a plea on and assault charge without receiving a notice to appear. This information was reported by Irving’s Canada East court reporter Don Macpherson, Macpherson writes; Blogger to appear in court on summary assault charge at 9:00am on January 19, 2015.

What is extremely bizarre is Charles LeBlanc was never given a notice to appear from the police or any court officials yet a court date has been scheduled.

I spoke with Charles and as of 8:00 pm on January 7th 2015 Charles hasn’t received any documentation from the courts or the police requiring him to appear on January the 19th. This is quite unusual, even for a trivial offense such as riding a bicycle without a safety helmet the enforcement officer issues a notice/promise to appear which is contained in the ticket and if the person does a no show than a warrant for their arrest will be issued.

In Macpherson’s article published on January 6th in the Daily Gleaner, Macpherson make no reference to who is laying the charge, so it is not known whether it’s the Miramichi Police Force or the crown who filed the charge against Leblanc, because Macpherson has not mention who laid the charge, one can’t rule out that the story may be a fabrication.

If the story is accurate the implication is that a person can be given a court date to answer to the charge without their knowledge. Common sense tells that the likely hood of non-appearance is pretty high if they have not been formally given notice to appear in court. What happens, are they arrested and detained for failing to appear?

This would appear to be contrary to the intent of our charter of rights, which is pretty scary stuff when you consider that people can be arrested and put in jail because they failed to attend their court date because haven’t been given an appearance notice. Once this issue is resolved, either for or against Blogger Charles, the public should be told how much it cost to get this low level offense into court, and in addition a comparative cost this action with other summary assaults that the courts have heard over the years.

The onus is on the crown to prove that Charles is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, if the crown fails, and Charles is found guilty, then one can only conclude that the courts found him guilty to justify the high cost of bringing Charles to trial.

4 Responses Mordaith, on January 9, 2015 at 18:30 said: Andre. Dude. Not cool. I had a great deal of respect for you up until this point. Macpherson is a stand up journalist. Who has only treated Charles with the fairness and respect he not only deserves but has asked for. Seriously? Making a comment that he may have made it all up? Do you know how you rule that stuff out? You know before you possibly slander a man and bring his professional credentials in to question? You ask him. Or you ask the cops. You check the facts. A simple phone call to the court, the police, or hell even the news paper could have illuminated this situation. Maybe you should really take a good firm look at how to check this information out, learn how to report on issues, before you start shooting at the hip with your itchy trigger finger against the first ‘evil corrupt Irving baddie’ you can find. You probably have no idea who I am. But I consider my self and old friend of Charles. And I had a large amount of respect for you until I read this. Shame on you. This kind of knee jerk reactionary writing is exactly the fodder that the big companies and the other powers that be need to continue to discredit left leaning people who value critical thinking.

Reply lefteyex, on January 9, 2015 at 21:29 said:

In response to your argument. I re-read the commentary, and I could not find anything that could be construed as an attack on Don MacPherson person nor did I find anything derogatory references about Don. The only thing that I could see was the comment “one can’t rule out that the story maybe a fabrication”, but I didn’t say nor suggested that it was Don who fabricated the story. The context was, where Don Macpherson omitted to mention his source, then one cannot rule out rule out the likely hood that the information that he provided may have been fabricated. Later in the commentary it did say “if the story is accurate”. The faux pas that Don MacPherson did, is, he reported that the accused was charged with an offense and the date of the court appearance before the accused was notified that they were being charged with an offense, Charles Leblanc was served with a summons to appear in court on the 19th of January which is two days later after Macpherson’s story, but that doesn’t exonerate the fact that the Daily Gleaner published prematurely the court date before Charles received his summons to appear. I have made several inquiries to see if is common practice for media to publish Charges being laid and the appearance date without the accused having prior knowledge that they were being charged. From my query it does appear that is not common practice for media to “Put the cart before the horse”. If you can show me explicitly that the commentary is not factual, I will re-evaluate the story, and if you are correct I will take the responsible action to remedy it, while I appreciate your feedback on the commentary, I stand by my commentary as is. – André Faust Reply

Mordaith, on January 10, 2015 at 00:40 said:

“In Macpherson’s article published on January 6th in the Daily Gleaner, Macpherson make no reference to who is laying the charge, so it is not known whether it’s the Miramichi Police Force or the crown who filed the charge against Leblanc, because Macpherson has not mention who laid the charge, one can’t rule out that the story may be a fabrication.” Seems pretty clear, to myself, and other who read this, that you implied Don made it up. And if you are trying to ‘spin’ it any other way, you are just as bad as the same people you criticize. Changing your narrative, claiming context and inference when what you meant was pretty darn clear. Shame on you Andre. I’m seriously disappointed. Consider yourself down one reader.

Reply Margret Leaky, on January 11, 2015 at 02:34 said:

I read the story the was published in the Daily Gleaner. I didn’t find any inaccuracies in Andre’s story. As far as fabrication, given the relationship that charlie with the justice system, it would be possible for someone to make something up just to discredit “The Blogger”

To be fair...Here's the Irving story -

DON MACPHERSON Fredericton Daily Gleaner Share this article January 5, 2015 Charles LeBlanc, a controversial blogger in Fredericton, will appear in court Jan. 19 to answer to a charge of summary assault.

Photo: Stephen MacGillivray/The Daily Gleaner archive

A controversial blogger and anti-poverty activist is set to appear in court later this month to answer to an assault charge.

Charles Joseph LeBlanc, 55, of 1-145 Westmorland St., Fredericton, faces a summary charge of assault, alleging an assault on Andrew Spencer in downtown Fredericton on July 3.

While the incident is alleged to have occurred in Fredericton, the city police force had asked an outside agency – the Miramichi Police Force – to investigate the complaint.

LeBlanc’s first appearance on the assault charge is scheduled for the morning of Jan. 19.

The Daily Gleaner reported last fall the Miramichi Police Force was investigating an assault complaint at the Fredericton force’s request, and LeBlanc confirmed he was the focus of that investigation.

LeBlanc has a tumultuous history with police officers in Fredericton.

He’s been arrested, convicted and sentenced for causing a disturbance, stemming from a one-man bullhorn protest at the police station.

The city police also investigated him for criminal libel, but that didn’t lead to a charge.

The provincial Attorney General didn’t approve the charge as the relevant section of the Criminal Code of Canada had been found to be unconstitutional.

City hall paid for an independent review of how the city police handled that libel investigation, which involved the police seeking information from LeBlanc’s Internet service provider.

A document filed with the provider that indicated the police were seeking evidence in the libel probe also referred to a search for evidence of a child-exploitation offence.

The police force said that was a clerical error, but LeBlanc doesn’t accept that explanation.

On his blog, he referred to members of the Fredericton Police Force as pedophiles, though he’s never had any evidence to back up those claims.

Those allegations led city chief administrative officer Chris MacPherson to file a complaint with Google, which owned the free online service on which LeBlanc’s blog was hosted.

The city official requested that posts on the blog that referred to officers as pedophiles be removed. Google opted to remove the entire blog.

LeBlanc has since launched a new blog at the same hosting service.