Turning to the Supreme Court in a last-ditch attempt to avoid jail time, disgraced entrepreneur Tony Accurso has asked to be freed pending further proceedings.
• Read also: Tony Accurso will have to spend four years in penitentiary
Last week, the 70-year-old man was dismissed by the Quebec Court of Appeal. She had decided by confirming her conviction and her detention of 4 years for her role in one of the worst cases of corruption in the country.
Antonio “Tony” Accurso was to surrender on Wednesday, June 1, but he filed a motion to be heard by the highest court in the country.
Matters of National Interest
He then intends to make “matters of national interest” heard, according to his lawyer Marc Labelle, during the hearing before the Quebec Court of Appeal to be released during the rest of the legal saga.
“It could have an impact on criminal trials in Canada, these will be complex and new questions,” added Me Labelle.
One of the grounds for appeal concerns a police investigation carried out after the abortion of the first trial of the ex-entrepreneur in 2017, which revealed the secrecy of the jury’s deliberations.
It’s that Tony Accurso’s first trial ended abruptly in 2017.
Jury Inquest
The day after the defense’s closing arguments, a member of the jury revealed that she had obtained undisclosed information in evidence.
Judge James Brunton, of the Superior Court, had made the decision to abort the trial, in order to preserve the fairness of the trial and the impartiality of the jury. A second trial was then held, leading to the conviction of Tony Accurso . The latter was then sentenced to a heavy four-year prison sentence for corruption, breach of trust, fraud and conspiracy.
Accurso was arrested in May 2013 after the discovery of a system of collusion and corruption for the awarding of public contracts by the City of Laval, between 1996 and 2010, under the reign of ex-mayor Gilles Vaillancourt. .
The Crown does not object
Although the Crown considers that the judgment of the Court of Appeal confirming the conviction of the contractor is “compliant”, it did not oppose Mr. Accurso’s request for release.
Suggested release conditions were therefore presented.
The matter has been taken under advisement and a decision will be made eventually.
