Skip to content

Role of Prosecutor Robin Ritter

Piggy-Back the Breach Charge

The Crown wanted to protect the Breach of Undertaking from an effective challenge. When our Preliminary Hearing opened, Judge Barry Singer held an administrative discussion before any witnesses were called. The discussion established the details of how the Crown would proceed.

Prosecutor Robin Ritter presented just one application, and this accomplished his top priority. Ritter asked the judge to restrict the evidence to the time period of the original charges (found in Information 738). At a future date when the Preliminary Inquiry ended, Ritter planned to simply extrapolate that evidence to the second set of charges (found in Information 649, which was the Breach of Undertaking).

In other words: just assume the Undertaking had been breached. My refusal of consent is on record in the Saskatoon Provincial Court Transcript of August 5, 2004:

Provincial Court, Preliminary Inquiry

TRANSCRIPT August 5, 2004 (pages 46-48)

ROBIN RITTER:

I'm representing the Crown in the matter for Georgena Sil. My friend, Mr. Borden, is here representing Ms. Sil.

JUDGE SINGER:

Good morning.

ROBIN RITTER:

There are two Informations before the court. The first is 738, and the preliminary inquiry will proceed with respect to Information 738. However, Your Honor, it would certainly save some time if we could apply the evidence in 649 as its heard to 738.

GEORGENA SIL:

No.

JUDGE SINGER:

Well, you can't do that without consent. Mr. Borden, do I have your consent?

GEORGENA SIL:

No, we don't have the postmarked envelope.

JUDGE SINGER:

Let your lawyer do the talking. Okay.

ROBERT BORDEN:

In relation to that, we'll proceed on 738, and at the end of the preliminary inquiry we'll do as we usually do, we'll take it under advisement and speak to it then.

JUDGE SINGER:

See what happens. Okay. Well, why don't you just –

ROBIN RITTER:

I can proceed then, Your Honor.

JUDGE SINGER:

Well, just a moment. Well, could you, without that agreement at the beginning then, try and restrict your evidence then to the time period in relation to Information 738.

ROBIN RITTER:

I could, Your Honor.

Role of the Speakers
Judge Singer: Provincial Court Justice
Robin Ritter: Prosecutor
Robert Borden: Defence Attorney
Georgena Sil: Client

How Much Did Robin Ritter Know?

Robin Ritter
Robin Ritter

As revealed by the Court Transcript, Robin Ritter wanted the Judge to make an assumption, and base serious legal decisions upon it, without examining the actual physical evidence for the Breach of Undertaking charge. The excuse Ritter offered was that his method would save time.

But: How much time is required to examine a single exhibit and its crucial postmark? Why did this Prosecutor so glibly side-step his duty? Just how much did Robin Ritter know at this stage?

And: Why did my attorney, Robert Borden, not show more interest in the Breach exhibit?

Main Witness Sgt. Bracken Jailed for Abuse of Trust

A year later, there was an abrupt change in Crown Prosecutors. The first Prosecutor, Robin Ritter, lost confidence in the case when his main witness, Saskatoon Police Sergeant James Bracken, got arrested for abuse of trust in an entirely different case. Sgt. Bracken pleaded guilty in that case and was sentenced to nine months in prison. Read the sentencing decision at: R. v. Bracken 2005 SKPC 64.

Significant Dates

Bracken: Criminal Charges

April 12, 2005

The Information #34542900 was sworn out against Saskatoon Police Sergeant James (Jim) Bracken, charging him with sexual assault of an underage girl contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code.

The publication ban refers only to the victim's name, not to the actual events which were covered in-depth in the Star Phoenix newspaper. The major news reports are listed at FP Infomart.

Click thumbnail for large readable view

Ritter withdraws

April 18, 2005

Crown Prosecutor Robin Ritter wrote a letter to my attorney Robert Borden which said, Re R. v. Georgena Sil:  Please be advised that Inez Cardinal now has carriage of the above mentioned file.

No reason was offered for the change in Prosecutors; we rely on the dates to tell the story.

Click thumbnail for large readable view

Georgena S. Sil
Saskatoon, Canada
Physicist & Technical Writer
Alumnus: University of British Columbia
TuumEstContact@protonmail.com

Copyright © 2008-2018 Georgena Sil. All Rights Reserved.