Nothing unusual about the way Thomas Steen case was handled: justice officials

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 13/10/2016 (3256 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

There was nothing special or unusual about the way charges were stayed against former NHL star and city councillor Thomas Steen, defence lawyers and justice officials say.

Defence counsel Richard Wolson said the Crown stayed two counts of assault and one count of uttering threats against Steen on June 20.

“My client is relieved, but this was before the courts for a long time,” Wolson said on Thursday.

“There were many, many months of having these charges hanging over his head.”

Steen, 56, was charged after a domestic incident in the Boston Pizza restaurant on McPhillips Street on May 1, 2014.

Sources told the Free Press at the time that Steen got into an argument there and the woman later contacted police saying she had been assaulted.

After police investigated and charges were authorized, Steen turned himself in to police. He was released on conditions including not being allowed to contact the woman.

Steen was rearrested two months later when he contacted the woman. He was kept in jail overnight and released the next day.

Wolson said it was up to the Crown to say why the charges were stayed, but he said that usually a stay is entered when a case does not pass “the prosecution’s test.

“The test is whether there is a reasonable likelihood of a conviction.”

As for whether it was unusual for the matter to be dealt with in an administrative move outside of a courtroom instead of before a judge, Wolson said that’s the way “more often than not” stays are done.

“There is nothing unusual that this occurred,” he said.

A spokeswoman for the province’s Justice department and other senior defence counsel backed that up.

“It is common for a Crown to stay charges by filing the necessary documents without appearing in court on the matter,” the spokeswoman said.

“This has been done for many years in the interests of efficiency, as opposed to having matters appear on dockets and using valuable court time.”

Defence counsel Saul Simmonds said the process is more efficient for everyone.

“It is done so court time is freed up,” Simmonds said.

“You don’t have to get lawyers and the accused there to take up valuable court time.”

Defence counsel Martin Glazer said the process is used at both the provincial courts and the Court of Queen’s Bench.

“The beauty of it is it can be done quickly,” Glazer said.

“And it delivers the same justice.”

kevin.rollason@freepress.mb.ca