Comments on: Blind Justice or Tory Justice?

By: greyburr

greyburr — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 03:43:05 +0000

Maybe the system really is corrupt.Not in the sense that a politician would actually try to influence the outcome,but more that we do have a two tier judicial system based on the ability to buy the outcome.Been there !!

By: Backseat Blogger

Backseat Blogger — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 01:05:44 +0000

Again, I agree with you in theory. It’s the practise that I’m having difficulty with.

Yes a judge has a lot of power but he can only act on the basis of the charges/evidence before him. if the Crown withdraws a charge, a judge can’t reinstate it.

the judge acted properly on the basis of the evidence before him.

there are rumours that the evidence re drugs/alcohol etc was tainted due to the improper actions of a rookie cop. crown counsel is only saying that there were problems with this evidence.

this goes back to my original point. crown counsel will be loathe to make public the rationale for its decisions.. especially if there are screwups.

the police will no be too happy with prosecutors if the police get blamed for that…

By: Kateland

Kateland — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 22:25:11 +0000

Actually, yes the public does have the right to know – there are certain circumstances where information may be banned for publication – before or during a trial if there is a chance it could prejudice a juror – or if a witness, victim or defendant is under the age of majority or if there is a risk it would harm or prejudice another either on-going or coming matter before the courts.

Crime reportage is a potentially libelous area which is why so many on-line media disable the commenting features on the publication of such news. Frankly, so many of the public don’t think of the possible legal implications before they hit the send button on a rant roasting the alleged criminal of the day.

Public criminal justice is a cornerstone of our legal system and one of the key principles which our legal traditions are based on. I really didn’t mention the Crown Attorney’s role, but quite frankly, the Justice did not have to accept the plea arrangement – it was within his powers to resist the arrangement made between the Crown Attorney and the Defense counsel – and even had a duty to do so if it would bring the justice system into disrepute – which it in effect it has done. These were very serious charges which were dismissed in exchange for a plea agreement to a very minor traffic offense.

I am not so reasonably sure the Crown’s reasoning was necessarily sound – especially in retrospect – given Jaffer’s acceptence of the deal – an innocent man with his financial resources would probably wanted to fight the charges at trial and be found ‘not guilty’ rather than have the accusations hang over him. Remember, he has not been found innocent in a public trial merely that the Crown believes there is a lack of reasonable evidence for a conviction. Two entirely different matters.

By: Backseat Blogger

Backseat Blogger — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:48:24 +0000

seriously, kateland, while i might agree with you in theory…
does the public actually have the legal RIGHT to know?
the way things work now our traditionally secretive bureaucracy now has the additional weapon of ‘privacy concerns’ to hide behind.
haven’t you noticed that ‘news’ reports regarding crime reporting are remarkably vague in detail these days?
any questions about the decision to prosecute as it did belong to Ontario’s crown prosecutions’ office. don’t forget that with our divided Crown while the feds make the laws it the provinces that administer them
good luck in getting an answer out of Ontario.

oh.. and if Mr. Jaffer ever hopes to get back into politics, he’s going to have to a lot better than his initial public response. as things stand now, he’s done like dinner.