Hussey V. Peter Belmont: The Supreme Court Case
On November 5, 1983, defendants Elijah Anton Askov, Ralph Hussey, Samuel Gugliotta, and Edward Melo were charged with attempting to commit extortion against Peter Belmont. The following men Askov, Hussey, and Melo had existing charges on possession of weapons, pointing a firearm, and assault with a weapon. The defendants had been in business with Belmont for supplying exotic dancers to licensed premises. Belmont was offered to pay 50% commission to run a business with Melo and Gugliotta in the Toronto area. However, Belmont refused and contacted the police to file reports. On November 12th, Belmont and his bodyguard were approached by the defendants in a tavern which was under surveillance. Melo and Askov were arrested on scene. Hussey ran away but later turned himself in and was charged on November 14th. Gugliotta was arrested on November 30th. The defendants Melo, Hussey, Askov were denied bail and were placed in custody for 6 months. On May 7th, the three men were ordered to
…show more content…
Before making the final decision the court considered the following factors, length of delay, prejudiced to the accused, explanation for the delay, and Waiver of Appellants. The Supreme Court then concluded that the delay of 2 years after the appellant's preliminary trial was unreasonable. The Crown did not justify the institutional delay and did not prove that the delay prejudiced the delay of the accused. Therefore, their final decision was to set the four men free as the delay was excessive. I agree with the court's decision because the Crown did not justify the reason for the 2-year delay, which was a violation of the men's charter rights. The men were also held in custody for 6 months before being proven guilty. This to me was the right ruling of the case because no serious crime was committed when the incident occurred, and the two-year delay was not appropriate for this type of
Before making the final decision the court considered the following factors, length of delay, prejudiced to the accused, explanation for the delay, and Waiver of Appellants. The Supreme Court then concluded that the delay of 2 years after the appellant's preliminary trial was unreasonable. The Crown did not justify the institutional delay and did not prove that the delay prejudiced the delay of the accused. Therefore, their final decision was to set the four men free as the delay was excessive. I agree with the court's decision because the Crown did not justify the reason for the 2-year delay, which was a violation of the men's charter rights. The men were also held in custody for 6 months before being proven guilty. This to me was the right ruling of the case because no serious crime was committed when the incident occurred, and the two-year delay was not appropriate for this type of