A no evidence motion, a 91-year old father unable to undo gift of a home, and child support after 19
This week on Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan:
An RCMP officer from Nanaimo is on trial for assault causing bodily harm after he is alleged to have punched a detainee in the eye causing a fractured orbital bone.
The complaint in the case was arrested on her 19th birthday after her friends called the police for help because she was so drunk. The RCMP officer that attended was unable to find a safe place for the woman due to her level of intoxication, so he arrested her for being in a state of intoxication in a public place.
The RCMP officer brought the woman back to the police station to book her into cells for the night so that she could sober up. As the woman was physically resisting, the RCMP officer sought assistance from a second RCMP officer.
While walking down a hallway towards a cell, the drunk woman attempted to resist the two RCMP officers and swung her foot out towards the officer that arrested her. The officer responded by taking the woman down to the ground, on her back. The drunk woman then punched the RCMP officer in the upper body or face and, after several more swings or punches, the RCMP officer punched the woman back, once, causing a fractured orbital bone.
The physical interaction was all captured on video.
In a criminal trial, the Crown goes first calling evidence. This is because the accused person is presumed to be innocent and is not required to prove they didn’t commit an offence.
In the trial of the RCMP officer, after the Crown finished calling evidence, a “no evidence” application was made. In cases with a jury, this can kind of application can also be called an application for a directed verdict.
When this kind of application is made, the judge hearing the case must determine if a theoretical jury could properly convict the accused. If they could not the judge would allow the application and acquit the accused without requiring them to decide if they wish to testify or call evidence.
In the case discussed, the RCMP officer accused was relying on both general self-defence provisions as well as section 25 of the Criminal Code, which provides a special defence for police officers. Section 25 permits police officers to use force that is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm to a person who has been arrested if they believe it’s necessary to prevent death or grievous bodily harm to themselves or others. The section also permits police officers to use as much force as is necessary for the administration or enforcement of the law if they act on reasonable grounds.
Because, when a no-evidence application is made, a judge must assume that all inferences that could be drawn from the evidence would be favourable to the Crown, the application was unsuccessful in the case discussed. The RCMP office on trial will, therefore, needs to decide if he wishes to testify or call other evidence.
Also, on the show, a 91-year-old father of two adult children tried, unsuccessfully, to undo a transfer of his home into joint tenancy with one of the children.
When a property is put in joint tenancy, if one of the joint tenants dies, the other becomes the owner of the entire property, with no reference to what a will might say.
The adult child refused to respect the father’s wishes to undo the transfer.
Finally, on the show, a judge has concluded that an application for child support for a child who is more than 19 years old must be brought by the child and not the parent on behalf of the child. Child support, after a child reaches 19 years of age, can continue if the child still requires support because of disability, continued education or similar circumstances.
Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan is live on CFAX 1070 every Thursday at 10:30 am. It’s also available on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.
Automated transcript of the show:
Legally Speaking April 28, 2022
Adam Stirling [00:00:00] It’s time for Legally Speaking, joined by Michael Mulligan, Barrister and Solicitor with Mulligan Defence Lawyers. Morning Michael, how are you doing?
Michael T. Mulligan [00:00:07] I’m doing great. Always good to be here.
Adam Stirling [00:00:08] It is always good to have you here. And I appreciate your perspective on these matters. I know you and I have discussed the repeat offender, what’s being called a phenomenon in the past. And I know that you’ve reminded us that there has not actually been a material change to federal statute that preceded what was perceived by many and stated by many politicians as being an increase in this phenomenon. So, I’m sure that you have some thoughts on the news story that’s been circulating about the urban mayors complaining about prolific offenders. What’s your take on all this?
Michael T. Mulligan [00:00:39] Yeah, I certainly do. And this is an area that I had frequent dealings with,.
Adam Stirling [00:00:44] mm-hmm.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:00:44] In my daily practice deal with criminal justice cases. That’s what I do.
Adam Stirling [00:00:48] Yeah.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:00:49] And so I read with interest both the letter signed off on by the Mayors of Victoria and Kelowna on behalf of the B.C. Urban Mayors Caucus, setting out concerns about prolific offenders and then a bunch of sort of suggestions and proposed causes of that phenomenon. And it’s been interesting. It’s obviously garnered some attention. Right. You had Todd Stone on earlier.
Adam Stirling [00:01:21] Yeah.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:01:21] Talking about it.
Adam Stirling [00:01:22] Yeah.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:01:23] And I suppose my take on it would be this; at the heart of it, there is a legitimate concern here. Right. There are there are a relatively small number of people who are responsible for a very high volume of property crime and police conduct. That’s absolutely true. And we’ve experienced that in Victoria and it’s in other parts of the province, you see the same thing. And the profile of the individuals who are the sort of repeat offenders are often they are people who are homeless and with great frequency, they are people who are, either or both of, drug addicted or mentally ill.
Adam Stirling [00:02:16] Yes.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:02:16] and often both of those.
Adam Stirling [00:02:17] Yeah.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:02:18] And so there is a cycle which goes on when you have somebody who’s addicted to drugs, mentally ill and homeless where they are basically their daily activity is trying to feed their unsustainable drug habit.
Adam Stirling [00:02:33] yeah.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:02:34] And so what you have are people who are going out, spending all of their waking hours trying to shoplift things or steal coins from cars or whatever it might be, or engaging in prostitution, sadly as well, trying to scrape together money to then buy drugs so that they can use them to feed their habit. And around and around they go. Right.
Adam Stirling [00:02:57] Yeah.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:02:58] And sort of one thing I think we should think about when we consider that cycle, right, that cycle of somebody who’s the drug addict, who’s committing property crimes, who’s then buying drugs, they wind up being arrested by the police, of course, occasionally for their shoplifting activity or their drug activity or the those other things associated with that. And they sort of circulate in and out of the criminal justice system and into jail. And they’ll often serve various periods of time in jail and back out they come and they’re still a mentally ill drug addict. Right. The reality of it.
Adam Stirling [00:03:31] Yeah, exactly.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:03:32] We don’t cure their mental illness or their drug addiction by having them in jail for a few months. It just doesn’t happen. We just get them right back out and around and around we go. One of the things which the province has proposed and it looks like it may get some traction.
Adam Stirling [00:03:48] mm-hmm.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:03:48] Is to try to both decriminalize possession of small amounts of drugs and in some circumstances provide drugs to these people. One of the reasons that that may be advantageous, not only from the perspective of avoiding people overdosing and dying when they use drugs that are too strong or not expected or whatever it might be. You also need to consider what impact if that goes ahead, that’s going to have on that cycle I just talked about. Right. If you don’t have people having to spend every waking hour stealing things, breaking into cars, houses and so on to get money to buy drugs, the rate of this sort of property crime and other things that are associated with it, will plummet. Right. The people that are stealing things and breaking into your car or stealing your liquor or whatever from your house are not generally doing it because they are Lex Luthor.
Adam Stirling [00:04:44] no.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:04:44] Or they are just greedy. They’re generally doing it to get money to buy drugs. And it’s a bit crazy that we have people out, having to spend their days committing those kinds of crimes, to then come and inject themselves with the drugs they’ve purchased from somebody in a safe injection site and then go right back out and repeat that cycle. It’s crazy. The amount of resources we could save if we didn’t have peoples committing crime, to buy drugs, to inject themselves with them, would be very significant. And so that’s something I think we should consider when we really get the picture of what’s going on here. Right. Are we dealing with people who are just criminally inclined? Probably not in most cases. Right. And we’re usually dealing with people that kind of profile. But with all that being said, it is a real problem, right?
Adam Stirling [00:05:34] Yeah.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:05:34] Some of the things identified in this letter from the mayors, however, and referenced by the liberal critic aren’t really the cause of the problem here. They’re just kind of misleading.
Adam Stirling [00:05:49] mm-hmm.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:05:49] The underlying problem. One of the things that the first page of this letter from the mayor is focuses on.
Adam Stirling [00:05:56] yes.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:05:57] They suggest that one of the problems is Crown Counsel requiring full disclosure from the police before doing charge approval.
Adam Stirling [00:06:04] Yeah. How does that work?
Michael T. Mulligan [00:06:05] It is not that that’s not, first of all, the cause of this problem.
Adam Stirling [00:06:09] Okay.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:06:10] But it seems to be sort of a gripe from looks like the first page of this thing might have been drafted by a police officer, perhaps an unhappiness that they are required to provide that the crown. And the way that works is this. When the police do an investigation, they are then required to provide to Crown Counsel a copy of the evidence that they’ve collected, along with a report describing what they think happened. So, the Crown Counsel can determine whether a criminal charge would be approved or not and none of that is new. There was not some change in that process. There wasn’t some radical change made by the attorney general or somebody else in terms of how that’s worked. The test, for whether the Crown will approve a charge is whether, in their judgement, is there a substantial likelihood of conviction based on the evidence gathered by the police and is it in the public interest to proceed? The second part of that test being why not, every, you know, 13-year-old who steals a chocolate bar gets charged criminally. Sometimes we give the chocolate bar back and the parents ground the child and we move on.
Adam Stirling [00:07:12] Yeah, yeah.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:07:13] And that hasn’t changed in any meaningful way. So, it’s not as if some roadblock was put up that are preventing things or people are behaving in some irrational or crazy way. But it’s not unreasonable that the Crown, say, provide us with a copy of the evidence that you’ve gathered so we can determine whether there’s a substantial likelihood this person will be convicted. Right. That’s the threshold, and it’s a reasonable one. And while, I appreciate for some particular police officer who, you know, thinks that they know darn well that somebody has done something, even though they don’t have evidence to establish it. It might be frustrating when the Crown says, look, this person just isn’t going to be convicted. I appreciate you think they’ve done something, but unless you’ve got evidence that would demonstrate that they’ve done it, we’re not approving charges. Right. Well, I appreciate they may be frustrating to the person who just knows in their heart somebody has done something. It’s not an unreasonable thing. It wasn’t some change and it’s not the core of this problem. Further, the letter suggests that there’s some problem of people being released without bail conditions. That’s not so either. To be honest, most of the people in this category, these people who are the ones talked about here, who are these prolific people who are arrested for shoplifting and mischief and drug possession and, you know, breaching their conditions by having drugs in their possession, that kind of thing. That’s who that’s how it is. You wind up with all of these charges. Right.
Adam Stirling [00:08:41] mm-hmm.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:08:41] And most of them are dealt with entirely by the police because the police now actually have authority when they arrest somebody to decide whether they are going to release a person to come to court with conditions that the police think are appropriate.
Adam Stirling [00:08:57] mm-hmm.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:08:57] Or whether they are going to seek their detention. And the police actually have authority in the thing called an undertaking to a peace officer.
Adam Stirling [00:09:06] mm-hmm.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:09:06] Where if the police have decided they’re going to arrest somebody, let’s say they’ve arrested somebody for shoplifting, they would if the police think it’s appropriate, they are permitted but not required to release the person to come to court on a future date. And the police can fill out on a form called an undertaking to a peace officer the conditions that they believe would be appropriate to ensure the person’s going to show up in court and stay out of difficulty in the interim. And they’re determined by the police officer. So, there’s not some epidemic of people being released without conditions. That’s just not so. But we need to also bear in mind that lifting conditions doesn’t make those conditions come true. Right? Like if you write down on a police undertaking or a court undertaking, don’t use drugs or don’t possess any drugs. Well, that is not going, that’s not going to have the effect of curing the person’s drug addiction. Right.
Adam Stirling [00:10:05] mm-hmm.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:10:05] What it’ll mean is that they’ll be charged “number 149” when they’re next found with some cheese from the grocery store of also possessing drugs. That’s what that does. And so, there is not some epidemic of irrational release of people without conditions or crown not approving charges that could be proven in court. Just those are not, not the case. Now, the other thing which is interesting is this this is something I circled in this letter.
Adam Stirling [00:10:36] mm-hmm.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:10:36] This letter from the mayor says “The solution is not for municipalities to keep adding safety resources. We have been doing that, which has come at the cost of other essential services, programs and infrastructure in our communities.” Now, that’s really interesting, particularly given that this was, who signed off on this letter.
Adam Stirling [00:10:56] Yeah, yeah, it is.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:10:57] Yeah. So, we do have there’s been an ongoing issue about do we have enough resources for the Victoria Police?
Adam Stirling [00:11:03] Yes.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:11:04] And I think the answer to that is, we do not. They have a very high caseload.
Adam Stirling [00:11:09] Yeah.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:11:09] They have a shortage of police officers. We have not, it’s not that we’ve been adding resources and that has somehow we’ve not been neglecting bike lanes or something because we’ve hired so many police.
Adam Stirling [00:11:21] Yeah.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:11:21] It is the opposite. And in particular in the context of Victoria and Esquimalt, we have in Victoria these things called ACT teams. ACT stands for Assertive Community Treatment.
Adam Stirling [00:11:35] Yes.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:11:35] It’s designed to deal with exactly these kind of prolific people who are like the mentally ill drug addict who keeps stealing cheese to buy drugs. Right. And the idea there would be to have a team of people, police officers, social workers, mental health people aggressively interacting with that person, often on a daily basis like, hello, I’m here. We want to make sure you’re going to your treatment or.
Adam Stirling [00:11:57] yeah.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:11:57] Whatever it is you’re supposed to be doing. I’m here. I’m on you. Right. Rather than passively waiting around for the person, the, you know, the phone call saying, yes, we caught Buster here with another block of cheese outside the grocery store. Don’t wait for that. The idea would be show up and deal with them in an assertive fashion. Police are an important part of that, right.
Adam Stirling [00:12:16] yeah.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:12:16] Because often somebody who’s going to be the mentally ill drug addict, you’re not just sending in a nurse. Right. You better have a police officer there to ensure safety, and so on. That’s important. One of the recent proposals was to hire two more police officers to be on those ACT teams and.
Adam Stirling [00:12:31] Yes.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:12:33] in Victoria, Esquimalt would contribute to it. And so, they don’t appear to be getting hired. So, it’s not, as the letter suggests, that you’ve been adding safety resources at the cost of other things. and that’s not the problem. There may be different scenarios in other parts of the province, but in Victoria, there is just not a compelling argument to make that they’ve been adequately resourcing the police department. They haven’t. And some of that has been, I think, a function of philosophy. Right.
Adam Stirling [00:13:00] Yeah.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:13:01] And that’s something you wouldn’t mind talking about after the break. All right. It’s just sort of the changes that have been made in terms of how we deal with people with mental illness or drug addiction and homelessness, how that’s evolved over the years and how that’s had an impact on all of us.
Adam Stirling [00:13:14] Michael Mulligan with Mulligan Defence Lawyers, we’ll continue with, Legally Speaking, getting Michael’s view on this news story that’s in circulation right now. BC’s Urban Mayors Caucus writing to the province of British Columbia on the so-called prolific offender issue, which absolutely is an issue. Has it been caused by recent statutory change? No, not that simple. According to Michael Mulligan, who will continue offering his analysis after this.
Adam Stirling [00:13:38] We continue with, Legally Speaking on CFAX 1070 Michael Mulligan with Mulligan Defence Lawyers always interested in hearing his perspective on these issues because Michael serves as criminal defence counsel. This is his stock in trade that he deals with every day of the week. So, he, more than anyone else would know if there had been a change in the system as well as various bail conditions and whatnot. So, Michael, I guess, I’m trying to wrap my head around this. So, the prolific offender problem is a problem. Was it noticed during COVID? It’s just it’s always existed, or did it get worse during COVID? Because the attorney general said that it seems to have gotten worse during COVID. But again, it’s difficult to quantify because I don’t know how we would measure data in terms of bail denied or something like that. Like it’s difficult to find metrics.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:14:22] Sure. And I should say, I don’t think that the underlying problem here is with bail conditions. Right.
Adam Stirling [00:14:29] mm-hmm.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:14:29] It’s not as if the solution to this real problem.
Adam Stirling [00:14:33] yeah.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:14:33] Is wait for the person to steal cheese and then try to put on stricter bail conditions. That’s not really the long-term solution to the problem, because the underlying issue is not cheese theft or coin theft. The underlying problem is you’ve got a mentally ill, drug addicted homeless person who’s committing crime all day long.
Adam Stirling [00:14:51] Yeah.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:14:51] And the answer to that is not a bail condition. More than a bail condition is required if you wish to stop that.
Adam Stirling [00:14:57] Yes.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:14:58] And if you want sort of an it’s this might be sort of a subjective thing, but generally, yes, there was an increase in this these challenges.
Adam Stirling [00:15:08] Okay.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:15:09] And the number of people who are committing these kinds of crimes over that period of time of COVID. And in part, that’s a function of how we addressed some of these issues. Right. And there’s been a long-term change over the last year to 50 years or so in terms of how we deal with this kind of, these kinds of individuals. It was up until not that many years ago that it was dealt with, that is to say, people who were in that category of sort of the person who was mentally ill, homeless and sort of supported themselves by petty theft, we actually had a legal it was a criminal offence called vagrancy.
Adam Stirling [00:15:50] Yes.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:15:51] And that had been in the criminal code for some period of time. A long time. One of the last versions of this made it an offence for a person, a person would commit vagrancy who supports himself in whole or in part by gaming or crime and has no lawful profession or calling by which to maintain himself.
Adam Stirling [00:16:11] huh.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:16:11] So if you don’t work and that’s how you support yourself. You’re committing a crime and they can arrest you and send you to prison. Right. There’s no sort of way I spend my days loitering around outside the shelter. You could just be picked up and sent to prison.
Adam Stirling [00:16:24] Yes.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:16:25] And we’ve moved from that to the far other end of the continuum, I think, going on during a period of time during COVID.
Adam Stirling [00:16:32] Yeah.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:16:32] Where we were inviting people to live in parks.
Adam Stirling [00:16:36] Yes.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:16:37] And that’s kind of where we’re at the moment. There was a story this morning on CFAX talking about, I think, it was the homeless shelter, some 250 some odd people working there.
Adam Stirling [00:16:48] Yes.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:16:48] Right. They’re unionizing. Right. We’ve got we’ve now sort of institutionalized this arrangement whereby we have mentally ill people living on the street providing services in that fashion. That’s what we’ve done.
Adam Stirling [00:17:00] Yeah.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:17:01] We used to have in BC, Riverview, which was a mental hospital, psychiatric hospital. And if you were somebody in that category, you’d be institutionalized and put there. There’d be no, you know, loafing around on the street, stealing for a living. That’s how we dealt with it. And it was viewed as not humane. And we’ve moved now to this circumstance where, you know, looking at it online the other day, the city Victoria we don’t handle the sheet the people with the instructions on overnight sheltering in parks telling people that you know you can do that but don’t sleep in a graveyard. And they also have a virtually ability to.
Adam Stirling [00:17:37] Does it really say that…. I guess it does
Michael T. Mulligan [00:17:38] They’ve actually produced. Some staff member was required to sit down and produce. You know, those like don’t do logos, understandable in all languages. One is like a line through a gravestone, like don’t sleep in cemeteries. They’ve also got, another great don’t do here, which is showing a person holding branches in their hand or that don’t do the description being don’t remove tree branches to construct shelters.
Adam Stirling [00:18:01] Yep.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:18:02] Anyways we’ve moved to that. And so, it should come as no surprise that when you don’t provide the proper facilities and treatment for people who are drug addicted and mentally ill, you’re going to have crimes of social disorder. That’s what we’re dealing with.
Adam Stirling [00:18:19] Yeah.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:18:20] Right. And we virtually institutionalized that sort of lifestyle. Right. It’s now no longer a criminal offence to do that. It’s supported by hundreds of people.
Adam Stirling [00:18:29] Yes.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:18:30] And so one thing I think well, as I said, I don’t think the solution here lies in charge approval without the crown providing it without the police providing evidence. That’s certainly not the problem.
Adam Stirling [00:18:40] mm-hmm.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:18:41] Nor is the problem writing down conditions on bail, they don’t use drugs. That’s not going to do it either. We do need proper resourcing for the police. That’s a good idea.
Adam Stirling [00:18:50] Yeah.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:18:50] I think the ACT, of that Assertive Community Treatment, if you’re going to have people living in that way, that’s a good idea. We should resource that properly. It’s generally effective. One of the other things which has been talked about in some context but is missing from this letter.
Adam Stirling [00:19:06] mm-hmm.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:19:06] Is whether we should be having even more assertive treatment for people who are in that position.
Adam Stirling [00:19:12] yes.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:19:12] People who are in and out of jail, constantly committing crimes, suffering from drug addiction and mental illness. Whether anything more should be done even then, the sort of the assertive community treatment. And I mentioned in passing before there actually we have in B.C. we have an act called the Offence Act which governs provincial offences and how they’re prosecuted and so on. And it actually still has in it, it starts at section 91 of the Offences Act, 91 and 92 and 93. And those sections deal with what was referred to as, in this language here, chronic alcoholics. So, it’s focused on people who are chronically drinking, and we actually have provisions here where there can be a physician can certify the person and take them into treatment. Into a treatment facility for chronic alcoholics or a psychiatric unit for observation and treatment. And then there’s a provision after 72 hours, you’d have to go before a justice and have a justice or judge decide whether the person could be kept there longer for treatment. And these actions are focused on chronic alcoholics, but perhaps there needs to be some consideration given to whether we should have some similar provisions that would require people to get treatment for some of these issues.
Adam Stirling [00:20:31] Yeah.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:20:31] I appreciate that Riverview may be viewed as not a humane way to deal with anyone who has a mental illness. But if you have somebody who’s got these sort of complex problems who are in and out and around and around the justice system, the underlying cause is not the cheese theft, and it’s not going to be sorted out by bail conditions.
Adam Stirling [00:20:50] No.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:20:50] And perhaps there should be some consideration given to having secure treatment for people; and you’ve got to, first of all, have the facilities.
Adam Stirling [00:20:59] Yes.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:21:00] Maybe some of the hundreds of people that are providing these services to people while they’re living on the street could be repurposed those resources to deal with the provision of treatment and resources in a treatment facility. Right. And there are some people well, you would hope that they would decide on their own that that lifestyle is eventually going to lead to their death. Probably. Right.
Adam Stirling [00:21:22] Yeah.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:21:22] See the high rate of death from opioid addiction.
Adam Stirling [00:21:24] Yes.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:21:25] Not everyone in that position is going to be able to rationally come to that conclusion. And so, one of the other approaches here might be, you’ve got to first of all, have the treatment facility. There’s no point saying, well, we might require somebody to do treatment when there’s nowhere for them to go.
Adam Stirling [00:21:40] Yeah.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:21:41] So you’ve got to, first of all, have a facility and we should view it as a penal thing. We should view it as, look, we’re trying to get you some help with your mental health and your drug addiction so that you don’t die. And in the interim, probably help bring some order to chaos out there.
Adam Stirling [00:21:55] Yes.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:21:57] And the government contemplated this with young people, but I’m not sure that the problem is necessarily just young people.
Adam Stirling [00:22:03] No.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:22:03] So perhaps we should consider having and resourcing the institutionalized treatment facility. Then you need to have spaces.
Adam Stirling [00:22:11] Yes.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:22:11] But if you have those, then perhaps there should be some consideration given to some version of like what we have here for people who were chronic alcoholics back in the day. We’ve moved on it seems from that problem. To ensure that people get treatment and help. And I’m not sure the model of shutting down hospitals and just leaving people on the street to go through a revolving door of jail and theft and jail again.
Adam Stirling [00:22:40] Yeah.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:22:41] Is the answer. It’s not fair to them and it’s not fair to the community. So I think, there are answers and there are some things that we know help already, like the ACT Teams, but we need to resource them and it’s not some quick fix solution, like we just changed the charge approval standard or write down more bail conditions. That’s not the problem.
Adam Stirling [00:22:59] hmm.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:23:00] There is a problem and there are things and real solutions to it. But they require, I think, much more than a quick fix or a sound bite or something. We need to provide the treatment and make sure people are getting it.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:23:11] Michael Mulligan with Mulligan Defence Lawyers second half of our second hour every Thursday. Legally Speaking here on the program. Michael, a pleasure as always. Thanks for your thoughts.
Michael T. Mulligan [00:23:20] Thank you so much. Have a great day.
Adam Stirling [00:23:21] You too, bye now.
Automatically Transcribed on May 2, 2022 – MULLIGAN DEFENCE LAWYERS