A Quebec court judge who started making inappropriate jokes in full court against a chaotic and “vulnerable” accused had to explain himself yesterday before a disciplinary panel headed by his fellow magistrate.
Judge Bruno Leclerc, who was summoned to testify before the Consul de la Magistrate to Quebec, admitted that he had acted “completely irresponsibly” and “foolishly” by showing questionable humor during the trial of a criminal case last year.
Judge Leklerk, who sits on Joliet, the victim of the complaint to the Council, can be reprimanded and his personal file can be tampered with.
The case escalated in late July 2020, when a magistrate questioned a man accused of a low-gravity crime.
According to what we heard yesterday during the audition of the audio tapes of the trial, the defendant, who was not represented by a lawyer, disturbed and misunderstood the need for action to be initiated against him.
Facing the situation, Judge Leklerk decided to seek a psychiatric assessment for the accused, known as Kenneth Hooran, at the Philip-Finel Institute in Montreal. But the tone between the two rose.
Still confused, the defendant asked Judge Lecklerk to identify himself.
The man who lost his sentence responded by giving the name of another magistrate sitting in Joliet.
“Vulnerable”
The lawyer representing the plaintiff in this case to the Judicial Council believes that this type of humor is completely inappropriate in such a case.
“I am particularly concerned […] It is true that we are dealing with a person who is vulnerable and he is clearly showing some confusion, ”he said.e Lucy Jonkas.
Misleading him in this way can have serious repercussions for him.
“We end up lying to a person who ends up being a psychiatrist [l’Institut] Finel and I are going to ask him questions about the speakers. [Or] The judge gave a wrong name, “said Ms.e Jonkas.
Excuses
According to Judge Lecklerk, he apologized during his testimony and promised not to do it again.
For the first time in his life as a magistrate he was complained about his conduct.
Despite our research, it was not possible to determine whether the accused was of indigenous descent. After his mental assessment, he was finally found to be worthy to stand trial.
The Judicial Inquiry Committee in this case will soon give its decision.
“Pop culture practitioner. Award-winning tv junkie. Creator. Devoted food geek. Twitter lover. Beer enthusiast.”
