I wonder who leaned on the judge, even he said he could read between the lines. With the Crown dropping the cocaine possession we'll never know who his dealer is.
CS: We know very little, last I checked, which is the problem. There is little to go on other than a TorStar article citing the possibility that there may have been a rights violations regarding a strip search. It's not clear how that is connected to charges being dropped, and there is no set remedy requiring charges be dropped in such circumstances.
There was a rash recently of related cases were accused failed to have their Show Cause hearings, which is a significant Charter violation. The remedy was assigned by the Judge at $2000/head, no charges dropped.
All the Charter has to say on such matters is that we have the right to seek redress before a Judge.
In Canada we are concerned with balancing rights, not granting absolute ones. So we have no rule about having to apply a specific remedy in the face of a rights violation. There are cases where judges have thrown out charges over clearly illegal searches, only to have a higher court reinstate them citing a clear need to have a crime prosecuted. Yes, accused have rights, but we all also have the Charter right to be protected from crime. The rule of thumb: Does the remedy or lack thereof cause the court to be brought into disrepute?
The story here is this: Jaffer was going to be let off especially easy as precedent calls for those who have served in public life to be dealt with in a lenient matter when being sentenced. Both his charges (drug possession and drunk driving) are dealt with leniently on first offenses already, so add in Jaffer's public service, and the result is likely a conditional discharge on the drunk driving and maybe a full discharge on the possession. Chuck in a defense lawyer's threat to do a Charter challenge, and you have a Crown reluctant to pursue due to the low results for such a volume of work.
So, a plea results.
The problem with the plea is that it results in no criminal record whatsoever, which is just plain wrong.
The rest of us would get a drunk driving conviction on our records. The possession charge would be dropped, or we'd be excused from a fine, or the charge would stick and we'd get a cash settlement.
Like many people, I do not believe that current and former politicians and officers of the court should be treated with leniency when they break the law. Quite the opposite should happen, I say.
Our precedents remain quite aristocratic in nature.
As for judges vs. Crowns, unless the judge thinks a Crown's actions are injurious to the cause of justice, the judge will generally go along with the Crown's choice. In serious cases, though, the judge would want to know more if he was not up to speed.
Does this matter bring our system into disrepute? Obviously it did. Just read the many editorials across Canada.
Drunk driving is something we spend a lot of resources dealing with, and consistently prosecute. It is inappropriate to drop the charge in any case, let alone one which is this high profile.
We have a Minister of the Crown with illicit substances in her home. It is very reasonable for us to want to know if that in any way compromises the Minister.
Looks like we will never know.
Unrepresented accused typically don't get such sweetheart deals.
Finally, you'll find little available data on plea bargains, and even less on Crown justifications. If you find any -- Homolka aside -- let me know.
4 comments:
I wonder who leaned on the judge, even he said he could read between the lines. With the Crown dropping the cocaine possession we'll never know who his dealer is.
"I suppose if I robbed a bank while married to a Conservative government minister I'd get to settle the issue by paying an overdraft charge?"
No, Mark, but you would have to return the money. It's only fair.
Can you link the case law how the judge could have prevented the negotiated deal between the Provincial Crown and the laywer for the accused?
If you find any cases, how often is that done?
Did the Crown admit the case would not stand up in court?
Are you upset with the Provincial officials negotiating the deal?
CS: We know very little, last I checked, which is the problem. There is little to go on other than a TorStar article citing the possibility that there may have been a rights violations regarding a strip search. It's not clear how that is connected to charges being dropped, and there is no set remedy requiring charges be dropped in such circumstances.
There was a rash recently of related cases were accused failed to have their Show Cause hearings, which is a significant Charter violation. The remedy was assigned by the Judge at $2000/head, no charges dropped.
All the Charter has to say on such matters is that we have the right to seek redress before a Judge.
In Canada we are concerned with balancing rights, not granting absolute ones. So we have no rule about having to apply a specific remedy in the face of a rights violation. There are cases where judges have thrown out charges over clearly illegal searches, only to have a higher court reinstate them citing a clear need to have a crime prosecuted. Yes, accused have rights, but we all also have the Charter right to be protected from crime. The rule of thumb: Does the remedy or lack thereof cause the court to be brought into disrepute?
The story here is this: Jaffer was going to be let off especially easy as precedent calls for those who have served in public life to be dealt with in a lenient matter when being sentenced. Both his charges (drug possession and drunk driving) are dealt with leniently on first offenses already, so add in Jaffer's public service, and the result is likely a conditional discharge on the drunk driving and maybe a full discharge on the possession. Chuck in a defense lawyer's threat to do a Charter challenge, and you have a Crown reluctant to pursue due to the low results for such a volume of work.
So, a plea results.
The problem with the plea is that it results in no criminal record whatsoever, which is just plain wrong.
The rest of us would get a drunk driving conviction on our records. The possession charge would be dropped, or we'd be excused from a fine, or the charge would stick and we'd get a cash settlement.
Like many people, I do not believe that current and former politicians and officers of the court should be treated with leniency when they break the law. Quite the opposite should happen, I say.
Our precedents remain quite aristocratic in nature.
As for judges vs. Crowns, unless the judge thinks a Crown's actions are injurious to the cause of justice, the judge will generally go along with the Crown's choice. In serious cases, though, the judge would want to know more if he was not up to speed.
Does this matter bring our system into disrepute? Obviously it did. Just read the many editorials across Canada.
Drunk driving is something we spend a lot of resources dealing with, and consistently prosecute. It is inappropriate to drop the charge in any case, let alone one which is this high profile.
We have a Minister of the Crown with illicit substances in her home. It is very reasonable for us to want to know if that in any way compromises the Minister.
Looks like we will never know.
Unrepresented accused typically don't get such sweetheart deals.
Finally, you'll find little available data on plea bargains, and even less on Crown justifications. If you find any -- Homolka aside -- let me know.
Post a Comment