The Peck Brief – Advocate for the Defence Part 1

May 27, 2010

Mess Media, May 27, 2010

Darcy Allan Sheppard and Michael Bryant

On May 25, 2010, special prosecutor Richard Peck announced that all charges against former Attorney General Michael Bryant would be dropped ruling that “there is no reasonable prospect for conviction in relation to either of the charges before the Court.”

Bryant had been charged with criminal negligence causing death and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death in relation to the death of cyclist Darcy Allan (AL) Sheppard after a traffic altercation on August 31, 2009.

Most cases end with the ruling of a judge or jury but this case ended with the ruling of a single criminal defence lawyer acting as an independent prosecutor.

Peck released an eleven page brief analyzing some of the evidence and justifying his decision to drop the charges without a preliminary hearing of the evidence. His brief answered few questions but also raised many more.

We have separated Peck’s brief into the two parts. Part one focuses on the initial incident where Bryant’s vehicle rammed into Sheppard. Part two will begin where Sheppard grabbed on to the vehicle.


An analysis of Richard Peck’s brief reveals that he relied heavily on the unchallenged statements of Michael Bryant to come his decision to drop the charges. Peck cherry picked evidence to support Bryant’s claims and either suppressed or ignored alternative evidence that challenged Bryant’s version of the events.

Read the rest of this entry »

Charges against Michael Bryant dropped

May 25, 2010

Mess Media, May 25, 2010

All charges against Michael Bryant related to the killing of Darcy Allan Sheppard have been dropped.

Richard Peck, the British Columbia based lawyer in charge of the prosecution of Michael Bryant told the court there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. It marked Mr Peck’s first appearance in court related to the case.

Peck’s statement on the reasons for dropping charges against Michael Bryant failed to address the initial unprovoked attack captured on video.

Today’s decision raises many questions:

Why does the media & justice system ignore Bryant’s initial unprovoked attack? They only deal with the response to the attack?

After the Rahim Jaffer debacle and now the decision to let Michael Bryant walk without a full hearing of the evidence, do we need justice reform in Ontario? Should a Grand Jury have input in these somewhat arbitrary decisions?

Is there a two-tiered justice system in Ontario?

“Two-tier justice means that those who can afford a legal dream team can buy their way out of jail,” – Michael Bryant

We will have more soon.