In an update to my interview with Robin Baird 10 days ago, prosecutors have announced that Corporal Monty Robinson will not be charged with dangerous driving causing death,or impaired driving causing death.
Crown is, however, proceeding with a charge of obstruction of justice against the RCMP who was involved in an accident that killed 21 year old Orion Hutchinson last year.
Corporal Robinson was off-duty when the jeep he was driving struck Orion Hutchinson, who was driving a motorcycle at the time. Hutchinson died at the scene, however Robinson left the scene, and returned later where he then failed a breathalyzer test. After a 7 month-long investigation, Delta police recommended the dangerous driving causing death charge, along with the impaired driving causing death charge to crown for approval.
Crown now says that the available evidence does not show beyond a reasonable doubt that Robinson was actually over the legal limit- at the time of the accident. Robinson claimed that he had taken alcohol between the time he left the scene and the time he returned.
Westcoast Views with Laila Yuile 
Justice for thee, but not for me.
It’s cold comfort, but maybe the family can sue for wrongful death.
LikeLike
Boozing before the test, isnt that an old lame excuse? Guess it still works. Mind you I think the obstruction of justice is a little heavier.
Lawsuits are a given.
LikeLike
There are no words to express my disgust at this travesty of justice…
LikeLike
This is bullsh!t !! It would appear that if you want to get away with things in BC… .
I hope his family sues to the nth degree, and wins. Though I don’t think that’s likely given the state of our “legal” system in this province. If there is such a thing as a 4th string banana republic – we’re it.
LikeLike
So, he left the scene of the accident in a sober state – then drove back later in a drunken state, failing the breathalyzer test.
Either way, he should have been charged with DUI at the very least. What a freakin’ joke this has turned out to be. I’ve been fighting hard over the past 6 years to maintain a sense of respect for the RCMP, and our courts – today I have none whatsoever. I can’t see that changing at any point in the future.
LikeLike
Leah Van Winkle ,
on December 2nd, 2009 at 10:55 am Said:
I’ve been fighting hard over the past 6 years to maintain a sense of respect for the RCMP, and our courts.
LikeLike
One can only hope the RCMP sees fit to fire the idiot on account of all his stupid moves.
LikeLike
“Mind you I think the obstruction of justice is a little heavier.”
As usual Sal, what you think bears no relation to reality! Impaired driving causing death is punishable by LIFE, though it is rarely given as a sentence. Obstruction of Justice is punishable by 10 years max, also rarely handed out – and don’t forget Monty is charged with “attempted” obstruction which may be even less than parking for the afternoon under the new updated Vancouver Parking Meter rates. BTW, even leaving the scene of an accident involving a fatality carries a higher maximum penalty than obstruction of justice. So maybe you should have your son google the Criminal Code before you opine Sal!
The way I see it Monty has the right to kill somebody at least once a year, plus he gets to collect a hefty salary without even having to go to work – at least for over two years now he has been on full salary (which for a mountie with his seniority is said to be in the range of $80,000 per annum) – better EI than I ever managed to collect – plus I wasn’t allowed to kill people in my spare time. I don’t know, but suspect we are also paying for all of Monty’s legal fees, definitely in relation to Braidwood etc.
The reputation of the RCMP has fallen so far that it is an insult to pigs to use that term in relation to a horseman!
LikeLike
What I have a hard time with, is that the Crown will not explain to the public the reasons behind their choice – just a vague ” we couldn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was impaired at the time”
Now, correct me if I am wrong, and I know that due to cost concerns crown often proceeds on charges only on the liklihood of a successful conviction, but should the crown not explain, in detail, why they are not proceeding ?
In light of the fact that the judge who Robinson appearred before when he tried to get his licence back didn’t go for it, then why would the crown not see fit to proceed. My understanding is that there are calculations that are quite accurate to determine when and how much alcohol would have been consumed to achieve a level at the time the test was given.
Again, no accountibility or transparency to the public lends itself to a lack of confidence in the system.
LikeLike