The two other options that we've discussed at the CCSO organized crime working group would be, first, some sort of statutory provision dealing with judicial notice. The prosecutors on the working group weren't satisfied, the last time we discussed it, that this would necessarily help them, but it's something we're giving some further consideration to. The idea would be to simply allow one court to take notice of findings of fact made in another court, where the facts and issues seemed to be the same, although that would not be without its challenges.
The other would be to try to address in some statutory way the nature of the evidence required to prove the existence of a criminal organization. Again, that would present its own challenges.
Is there a way to get around the challenge of proving that the person before the court has done whatever they've done in connection with a criminal organization? Certainly, we don't have any options at this point that would really cut that Gordian knot. If the consequences of the conviction depend upon showing that what they have done, they have done in connection with a criminal organization, then that evidentiary burden in some form is still going to be there.
We have dealt with other issues, such as proceeds of crime matters with a reverse onus after the conclusion of a criminal case, a reverse onus where it was alleged that the wealth accumulated by the person before the court involved organized crime activity. It was trying to get at some of the elements of the organized crime activity in that way.
But as to the basic issue of proving a criminal organization offence, I can't say we've come up with any magic bullets. Certainly we're exploring a number of ideas to see if we can find some way to ease the burden somewhat--although, as I say, the prosecutors we've talked to themselves don't see any easy way of doing that.