Case should continue on

Editor’s note: We asked Mr. Whitehead to comment for a story Monday on Michael Elphicke’s conviction. The reply arrived after deadline, but he’s given us permission to run it as a letter to the editor. Mr. Whitehead is concerned Elphicke may walk anyway, because his lawyer is seeking to have the charges tossed out due to a delay in getting the matter to trial. Dear editor: I am a parent who was affected by the unscrupulous behaviour of the principal organizers of the Okanagan Elite Hockey Association.

We were promised a trip to Europe for our sons to play hockey in 2012.

We had put up a deposit and fund raised money for this trip for our then-14-year-old sons.

Realizing in early February 2012 that there were problems and admissions from the organizers that all of the money had been liquidated from our accounts (roughly $127,000) and used for personal income, personal expenses and investing into a project that none of the parents were consulted on, at that time we contacted the RCMP in Penticton and submitted evidence for charges of fraud and theft.

This case finally made its way into the Penticton courts in September 2017. There was a trial of three weeks where most of the parent group and other witness testifying to the allegations of fraud and theft. One of the accused showed up and stood trial; the other did not.

Now we find out that this case is in jeopardy of failing due to the length of time the Crown took to get around to prosecuting the case.

I can understand that the Supreme Court of Canada in 2016 determined that all criminal cases need to be prosecuted within a 30-month period or less.

What I do not understand is how this case, which took 33 months to get to trial, can be affected by a ruling from 2016.

There should be a precedent set within that ruling of 2016 that allows all cases already within the system to tried in a reasonable time frame after that ruling so as the criminal process can be carried out and cases can be satisfied to the extent of the law.

I would hate to see these individuals walk away from the consequences of their actions due to a technicality of a court ruling made after the date of their charges. Ken Whitehead Kamloops those are rarely the readers of the editorial pages.

From a “frequent correspondent.” Joy Lang Penticton