Made with Love

Woman held 2 years on minor charges

HoneyBee

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2012
Messages
595
Our justice system is fucked ... we don't stand a chance, on 1 hand we got the Eaton's shooter and a known gang-banger on house arrest for a sex crime walking the streets and an the other hand a woman who wrote letters (she used a pen as her weapon) in CUSTODY FOR 2 YEARS :shocking: and now to be retried


https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/1205807--woman-held-2-years-on-minor-charges

Astrida Kankis has been labelled mentally ill, a designation the tall, 51-year-old cleaning company supervisor denies.
But one thing seems certain, Kankis was subject to a miscarriage of justice last year when she was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental illness for six minor charges, and was hospitalized indefinitely.
“Her legal rights were factored completely out of the equation,” Superior Court Justice Gary Trotter said in a January ruling, ordering a new trial.
Kankis spent almost two years in pre-trial custody or in a psychiatric hospital for charges that would likely not have resulted in any jail time, Trotter said. The maximum sentence is six months.
“I couldn’t understand why they were holding me for such a long time,” said Kankis, who is now on bail.
On Monday, Kankis appeared before another judge, Kathleen Caldwell, in Old City Hall provincial court, and said she is filing an abuse of process application against the Crown, which is going ahead with a second trial.
“At some point the Crown loses its right to prosecute,” Christopher Murphy, Kankis’s court-appointed legal adviser, said in an interview. “My view is the Crown has lost that right already.”
In August 2010, provincial court Justice Sheila Ray found Kankis guilty of six counts of breaching a recognizance for sending six letters to the family of her ex-boyfriend, in contravention of a peace bond.
Kankis admitted to sending the letters, which were full of well-meaning health advice, but still refuses to accept she did anything wrong.
After she was found guilty, the Crown applied, against her will, to have her found not criminally responsible owing to mental illness.
She was held in custody six months pending psychiatric assessments. On Feb. 10, 2011, Kankis was brought to court and handed a lengthy psychiatric report by Dr. Jonathan Rootenberg.
Rootenberg wrote she suffers from a major mental disorder — most likely schizophrenia — and could not appreciate her letters were morally wrong.

Kankis was sent back to the cells and given 30 minutes to read the report without the benefit of a pencil, pen or highlighter.
When she returned, the judge refused her request, which the Crown opposed, for a two-week adjournment to find a lawyer.
Kankis was forced to cross-examine Rootenberg without any assistance and with poor results, Trotter said.

Ray found her not criminally responsible and she was ordered to a psychiatric facility.
In court Monday, Crown prosecutor Onelia Delgado told Caldwell she would withdraw the charges if Kankis agreed to sign another peace bond.
Kankis refused on principle, despite not having contacted the family for three years.

“I wrote intelligent, educational letters and I was charged with a crime,” she told the judge.
Delgado told the judge the defendant doesn’t seem to grasp that any contact with the family, no matter how benign, was a breach of her peace bond.
Kankis’ new trial is set for January.
Delgado or the Crown’s office did not reply to messages seeking comment.
 
Thanks Honey but paraphrasing will make it an easier read.
 
Mental illness is a slippery slope in the legal system and without hearing the full story here it's hard to form an opinion.
 
ok, i have to stand in the middle on this one and as bosco stated, we don't know the whole story. For one, she contacted someone who had a peace bond against her which is in and of itself a major nono...doesn't matter what she wrote in the letters, if she wasn't supposed to contact this person, she shouldn't have.

If she is mentally ill, and has been held in a hospital and being treated for her mental illness, then basically, she'd had a free hospital stay. If she is mentally ill and would present a danger to herself or others being on her own, then i agree with the initial ruling......

If she could have been treated and released long ago, then I agree with the new trial. I also agree that she should have been allowed to seek legal advice and the judge in this case blew it on this point.

I also agree that there is something wrong with a repeat offender being on house arrest....he should have been locked up after the first one......
 
Back
Top Bottom