JUDGE MAY HAVE BEEN TOO HARD ON HIMSELF

Peter Leask's Colourful Outburst In Court Didn't Deserve The Media
'Maelstrom' It Received

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Peter Leask proved last week to be a
stand-up guy capable of taking ownership of his mistakes.

Had he been any less of a straight shooter ready to admit he was
wrong, Leask would still be getting fried.

The Germans have a great word for the glee people get from the
misfortune of others -- schadenfreude -- and it was everywhere in B.C.

Fortunately Leask got out front of the wave -- no Nixonian, "I am not
a potty-mouth" for him.

In my view, what happened bordered on comic -- an episode of South
Park.

"He didn't deserve this maelstrom and we are bordering on offended
[by] the fact that it's happened," said defence lawyer Neil Cobb.

I agree.

I thought it misguided that a respected judge was seen as a
guttersnipe using the vernacular in front of "school children."

It would have been funny had the repercussions not been so
serious.

Leask, his voice breaking with emotion, grovelled unreservedly as a
result of the tumult his comments set off.

"The language I used had no place in the courtroom and I was wrong to
use it as I did," he said.

"I hereby wish to make an unreserved apology to all those I have
enumerated and acknowledge that my behaviour was inexcusable."

The judge appeared stricken as he read his two-page statement of
remorse and quickly left, looking as if he might collapse in tears.

You'd have thought he did something horrible, as opposed to utter a
handful of words and phrases you'll hear in any schoolyard.

I think he was way too hard on himself.

But hey, front-page headlines, editorials, radio talk shows, national
television news...

Leask has been on the bench only a year or so and his skin has yet to
toughen.

He felt compelled to do penance because of the unbelievable attention
his comments provoked.

But let's think about it for a minute.

If not for the spotlight he attracted, the chattering classes would
never have heard of his use of profanity.

And if they understood the courts and what happens at trials, they
probably wouldn't have paid any attention either.

For one thing, Leask appeared to be doing little more than voicing
opinions in the patois of the accused.

Enthusiastic role-playing more than anything, if you ask
me.

Happens regularly in criminal court, get over it.

This was not about a profane-laced rant or an obscene interjection, as
in, "f--- you, Mr. Prosecutor."

That's why no one in the court was offended.

Neither the Crown nor the defence raised the issue.

Neither did the so-called "school kids" who were apparently in the
audience.

None of them came out of the woodwork to complain or identify
themselves to reporters after the justice's heartfelt mea culpa.

Lastly, the media weren't present for the judge's remarks -- they
learned of them a day later.

Let's remember this is a major drug trafficking trial involving the
Hells Angels.

If Leask made a habit of indulging in the argot of the gutter, there
would be cause for concern -- but he doesn't and he doesn't commonly
use vulgarity.

Before he was elevated to the bench, Leask was a tremendously
respected member of the bar.

Trained at Harvard, he was one of the province's truly liberal, legal
intellectuals who reminded many of the late prime minister Pierre
Trudeau because of his acumen and elan.

That's a kiss of death in some law-and-order circles because it means
he's likely to love the Charter and the benefits the Supreme Court of
Canada has given to the accused since it was adopted.

That is the disturbing subtext of last week's events.

Someone was angry at the looming acquittal of the Hells Angel and the
judge for believing the accused over the prosecution's evidence. They
tried to embarrass Leask by drawing attention to his controversial
comments.

Unfortunately, they succeeded.

If the lack of colour in his face and his melancholic mien were any
indication, the province came close to losing a Supreme Court justice
for a very trivial reason.

This was not a tempest in a teapot, it is a worrisome indication of
the precarious position of the judiciary.