Dean Del Mastro was convicted of “incurring election expenses that exceeded the campaign limit”, “making a personal contribution that exceeded the limit” and “providing a false or misleading election return” as a party to the offence by an Ontario Court. His sentencing was adjourned. (R. v. Del Mastro, 2014 ONCJ 605)
Del Mastro took the witness stand in his own defence. After viewing his testimony, the Judge made a number of negative comments about Del Mastro’s credibility.
While I accept some of Del Mastro evidence, I have concerns about the credibility of his evidence, specifically its veracity on contested issues revolving around Holinshed’s provision of election services in the fall of 2008. There are a number of inconsistencies and improbabilities. At times, the way in which he testified led me to believe that he was avoiding the truth.
The Court also noted that Del Mastro could easily have called witnesses to verify some his testimony, raising further concerns about his credibility.
On the day of his sentencing, Del Mastro made a motion for a mistrial. Del Mastro said he wanted to get the matter over with and the prosecution said it was a delay tactic.
Click here to check out Tom Rees & Company’s post about that story.
The Canadian Press is reporting today that Dean Del Mastro’s application for a mistrial was dismissed by an Ontario Court. The reasons are to be provided by a judge orally in the future. Three Victim Impact Statements will be admitted as part of his sentencing hearing.
To read the article on the Huffington Post, click here.
Deal Mastro’s case has also raised questions about whether MPs should still receive a pension if they are convicted of criminal offences while holding office.
To read more about it on our Legal News Page, click here.