No, of course not. I should say at the outset that not only do I have the highest respect for the peace officers who I deal with in my professional capacity, sometimes as clients and sometimes as witnesses in cases, but for Crown counsel as well. They're dealing with the tools they have.
I'll say this about Crown counsel. The Crowns I come up against are well educated, professional and extremely knowledgeable on the law; however, their hands are often tied by policy. Let's go to Ontario for an example.
In Ontario, the provincial Crown attorneys are governed by the Crown policy manual. If you open up the Crown policy manual to the section entitled “Firearms”, you'll see that while individual Crown attorneys have wide discretion to withdraw charges, to proceed by lesser means and to divert charges for a wide variety of offences, they do not have that same discretion for firearms. They have to get approval from either a deputy Crown attorney or the local Crown attorney or another designated Crown attorney. Even when I sit down and say, look, this is a self-defence case, what I often hear is that it's a gun case and it's going to trial, which is not the case for other offences.
I think Crown policy is as important as police policy here in ensuring that charges that don't have a reasonable prospect of conviction or are otherwise not in the public interest—the two general hallmarks for continuing a prosecution—apply equally to firearms offences.