This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Canada: Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian law. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The conclusion of the court here is incorrect. This article is misleading and factually inaccurate. The majority of the court found that the first trial was purely disciplinary and rejected the appeal. It was not found, as this article claims, that the criminal procedure would constitute double jeopardy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.208.12.66 ( talk) 22:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC) reply