We did not hire constitutional experts, but I did have the opportunity to have discussions with Crown Attorneys. I recently attended parole hearings, among them that of Mr. Forget, an individual who attempted to murder two policemen. I thus had the opportunity to discuss in particular the reverse onus of proof.
Having to prove that an individual is a dangerous offender is quite a burden for attorneys. They say that it is a very demanding task. It is so difficult that in many cases, instead of applying the principle, they simply let it go. It requires too much energy, it is costly and it is a very involved process. It is in their view deplorable, because individuals having committed crimes of this nature should normally be declared dangerous offenders.
Crown Attorneys therefore fail to understand why the burden of proof should not fall to those individuals. The fact that they were thrice found guilty is in their eyes proof that these people were guilty of committing these acts. This is what the Crown Attorneys I have had discussions with have told me.