Member

Let us contrast this with what happens when the prosecution takes the final step of offering no evidence. Then, the prosecution is required to explain its position openly in court, and it results in an acquittal, after which the case cannot be restarted. Discontinuance, by contrast, is an administrative step: the prosecution simply writes a letter saying that it is discontinuing. It does not have to give any reasons to the court, the defendant or the victim for stopping the prosecution. That reduction in transparency and judicial oversight is an important constitutional change, particularly where it would apply to cases such as terrorism, rape and murder. I repeat: discontinuance is not a pause. It ends the proceedings without a verdict, but the proceedings can be restarted, just with no time limits and no supervision. So everyone is left in limbo and, importantly, the defendant would not be on bail; they would simply be free, with no conditions, so there would be no possibility of protecting victims or witnesses.