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: Crown Prosecutor

Robert Borden: Defence Attorney

Georgena Sil: Client

How Much Did Robin Ritter Know?

Robin Ritter
Robin Ritter
Crown Prosecutor

As seen in the Court Transcript excerpt above, Robin Ritter wanted Judge Singer 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 the Crown Prosecutor assigned to the case. The first Prosecutor, Robin Ritter, lost confidence in the case when his main witness, Sgt. James Bracken of the Saskatoon Police Service, got arrested for assault and abuse of trust in an entirely different matter. Sgt. Bracken pleaded guilty and was sentenced to nine months in prison. The sentencing decision at R. v. Bracken 2005 SKPC 64 is instructive, peeling away layers to unveil his motivation – specifically, that Bracken treats vulnerability as an aphrodisiac.

The Significant Dates

Bracken: Criminal Charges

April 12, 2005

On this date, Information #34542900 was sworn out against Saskatoon Police Sergeant James (Jim) Bracken, charging him with sexual assault of an underage girl in violation of section 271 of the Canadian Criminal Code.

The lower right bears a stamp reading Ban on Publication. Note this 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.

After a trial in Saskatoon Provincial Court, Judge Mary Turple-Lafond sentenced Bracken to nine months in prison.

Click arrow to enlarge/reduce image

Ritter withdraws

April 18, 2005

Sgt. James Bracken was the lead police investigator on my own case. He had a duty to take the details of my complaint of abuse perpetrated by Dr. Yelland. Yet in his Occurrence Report, Bracken wrote the phrase blah, blah, blah literally as his only answer. The context for that disrespect is now clearly evident: abusers shield each other.

Bracken was arrested on April 12, and less than a week later (April 18) the Crown Prosecutor Robin Ritter withdrew on my case. Ritter wrote a letter to my attorney Robert Borden saying, Re R. v. Georgena Sil:  Please be advised that Inez Cardinal now has carriage of the above mentioned file.

Ritter gave no official reason for withdrawing. We rely on dates to tell the story.

Click arrow to enlarge/reduce image

Georgena S. Sil
Saskatoon, Canada
Physicist & Technical Writer
Alumnus: University of British Columbia
TuumEstContact@protonmail.com
Twitter Facebook Linked In Google+
Eye: miniature painting

Eye Miniature (Watercolor on Ivory)
Smithsonian Museum

The reason why men do not obey us, is because they see the mud at the bottom of our eye.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

CONCEALED EVIDENCE

Behind the Scenes

When a Breach charge is fabricated, a Crown Prosecutor may protect it from challenge thus: He asks the judge to restrict all the evidence to the time period of the original charge.

The court then simply extrapolate that evidence to the second charge (the Breach). The Justice system at its most malicious.

Copyright © 2008-2019 Georgena Sil. All Rights Reserved.