> [7] After Mr. Epstein testified in chief, in a tremendous display of professionalism and objectivity, Crown counsel declined to cross-examine him since, in her view, it was not in the public interest to do so. Instead, she humbly invited the Court to enter an acquittal. Having heard the evidence, I can unreservedly confirm that she made the right call. Counsel’s integrity was commendable.
One thing that I found in reading the judgement was that French/English tensions came into play (the accused was Anglophone, the complainant had taken exception to him speaking English) which is a political hot topic in Quebec right now. It's possible there were some political motivations in play.
The term "Crown" used to mean the prosecution in criminal cases derives from the actions of Henry I and particularly Henry II, in despatching teams of royal justices around the country, to hear cases in the provinces. Previously, such cases were heard mainly in baronial courts. In that sense, these kings made the English law more uniform, and more accessible.
One of the customary requirements of kings was that they should dispense justice. One of the classes of court in the UK is Crown Courts, which hear criminal cases in front of juries (and appeals from magistrates courts). They are not controlled by The Crown, and the judges are not appointed by The Crown.
In theory, the government here governs by the grace of The Crown; everything is by grace of The Crown. In practice, it's nonsense.