The mafioso Del Balso dismissed in superior Court
Photo courtesy The Gazette
Tuesday, 19 December 2017 14:31
Tuesday, 19 December 2017 14:33
Look at this article
The mafioso Francesco Del Balso will have to wait before obtaining a conditional release, as the superior Court has refused to hear his request.
“The court declines jurisdiction “, concluded the judge Hélène Di Salvo, Tuesday, at the palais de justice of Montreal.
Del Balso, 47 years old, has been serving since 2008 an 11-year sentence in the penitentiary, the result of the operation antimafia Coliseum occurred two years earlier
He had obtained a statutory release at two-thirds of his sentence, but then he was returned to prison for his own safety, following the murder of his ex-partner Lorenzo Giordano in march 2016.
For Del Balso, this pattern does not hold the road.
And it was also against another return to custody, because it removes an electronic bracelet following a violation of the home, his home, while he was elsewhere. However, the taxpayer argued it, wearing such a bracelet was not part of the conditions he needed to meet.
“Having withdrawn from the organized crime, the behavior of Mr. Del Balso does not represent a risk of re-offending and does not demonstrate an undue risk to society “, claimed the lawyers Karl-Emmanuel Harrison and Rita Magloé-Francis in their motion filed in Quebec superior Court.
But the court has refused to hear this motion to be released, since Del Balso must follow the normal process, either to be heard by the appeal division of the parole Board of Canada [PBC].
The appeal process of the PBC is ” complete, comprehensive, and specialized “, ruled the judge.
But Del Balso does not stop there. By the voice of his lawyer, he was assured that he would appeal the decision to the superior Court, which has refused to hear constitutional matters.
“We are of the opinion that the board is not a court that provides sufficient procedural safeguards to protect the detainees’ right to a fair hearing, ” said Me Magloé-Francis, who recalls that the right to counsel is not recognized at the hearings, and that there was no cross-examination possible.