|
|
Another concept that I still have trouble wrapping my mind around is the ability of the Crown to take a case all the way up to trial hoping that the accused would plead out, and knowing that if they made it to trial they would withdraw the charges. The Crown had ample opportunity to pull the plug on the case. As early as Oct. 26th 2001 they could have made an ultimatum to the police to give up the warrant or else they would drop the case. This plan could have potentially saved taxpayers roughly $15, 000. Had the Crown lacked the foresight on Oct. 26th they had yet another opportunity in the confirmation meeting on Sept. 4th 2002, and another on Sept 11th. One can argue that because of the structure of the Crown’s office so many lawyers touched the case for such small amounts of time that none of them had a complete grasp of the facts and case. While it is true that at least four different Crown lawyers all handled the file at least one of them was part of the case for four weeks, surely he had enough time to see what was going on. This raises two questions; what are the responsibilities of the Crown, and who is the Crown accountable to?
It is up to the police to lay charges and once the charges have been laid the decision as to whether the prosecution should proceed, and in what manner, is for the Attorney General and the Crown Attorneys to decide. The Attorney General provides the legal advice from which the police make their decision to prosecute. The Crown has the responsibility to “represent the public interest - which includes not only the community as a whole and the victim, but also the accused. The Crown has a distinct responsibility to the court to present all the credible evidence available. The responsibility is to present the case fairly - not necessarily to convict” It is hard to believe that the Crown attorneys were representing the public interest as well as the accused while pursuing this case. Bearing in mind their knowledge that one of the pieces needed to make full answer and defence to the charges would never be received by the defence the Crown clearly was not representing the interest of the accused.In continuing to prosecute the accused knowing that if the case went to court the defence had a successful charter argument the Crown was not representing the interest of the public as it was wastefully using their money. Speculatively, the Crown might have been representing the interest of the police, with whom good relations are compulsory for success, an alarming thought.
The Crown lawyers are ultimately accountable to the Attorney General who in turn is accountable to the people of the province through the Legislature. From observing this case I can only believe that the crown lawyers are granted tremendous leeway with regards to the cases that they pursue and the means by which they pursue them with. It can be argued that initially there seemed to be a legitimate case however when it quickly became clear that full disclosure would not be made to the defence, someone in the office should have decided to withdraw the charges. The Crown was in violation of their responsibility to protect the interest of the accused as well as the public yet no one held it accountable. This brings back the question of accountability. From this example we can see that the checks and balances within the Attorney General’s office which are necessary to ensure the accountability of the Crown attorneys are lax.
Even if none of the Crown lawyers had the file long enough to see the forest through the trees I thought that at least a judge might noticed what was happening and nipped it in the bud, but no one did. I asked the Defence lawyer, how come the judge did not voice his displeasure over the Crown taking this case all the way to trial, having the courtroom booked up for a day and a half only to withdraw the charges. What the defence counsel told me supplements the knowledge I obtained from our judicial administration class. Ontario Court Judges are machines, who because of the massive amount of cases that come before grow almost indifferent to the cases.
The Defence council added an interesting, though speculative point. He said that had this been a Superior Court the judge might have voiced his displeasure. This prompts me to wonder if in Ontario there exists a hierarchy of justice with those in the Ontario Provincial Court getting the short end of the stick. If such a problem does exist within the courts there could be numerous reasons, two of which are; Superior Court judges are better judges than Provincial Court judges, or that the massive case load coupled with the limited budget that plagues the Provincial Court system renders it extremely difficult to spend the appropriate time with each case. Whatever the reason, if such an inequality does exist then it strongly calls into question the notion that all men are equal before the law and the situation must be rectified.
Two possible plans for rectification of the seemingly two tiered Court system could be; the merging of the two courts into one Provincial court, and/or an increase in judicial accountability. The latter argument however poses numerous problems, the major one being how do you increase judicial accountability without affecting the independence of the judiciary.
|
Tags
You must be logged in to add tags.
|
Writer Profile
Jordan
This user has not written anything in his panorama profile yet.
|
Comments
hrm... Martin Kuplens-Ewart | Oct 18th, 2002
...In the US, a guy was held in prison without trial/hearing for 3 yrs [Kevin Mitnick]. They dropped the charges after that.
An Excellent Case in Point Huss Banai | Nov 20th, 2002
Unfortunately, this is not an exception to what goes on everyday in our justice system. Jordan, you do well by bringing it to our attention!
Justice System Ally | May 29th, 2003
I have to agree with everything you said: the Crown can extend a trial and the justice balance is in favour of the Crown. And yes, judges and even the attorneys should stop a case if it isn't going anywhere but that can only happen in a perfect world. I am not siding with the Crown's side (especially in this case), but in an overloaded justice system without enough attorneys or judges cases are lost through the cracks. It's too bad, because it's costing taxpayers money and it's ruining lives.
You must be a TakingITGlobal member to post a comment. Sign up for free or login.
|
|
