DISPELLING THE MYTH OF 'ACTIVIST JUDGES'

Appeal Court Ruling On Courtenay Grow Op Shows Sentences Reflect Law,
Changing Times

There's a pervasive myth about the power of "activist judges,"
accused of making law on the fly, generally in the interests of offenders.

People concerned about the issue should visit the website of the B.C.
Court of Appeal (www.courts.gov.bc.ca) and read the judgment in the
case of R. v. Santvoord.

It demonstrates the way in which our system of justice provides
checks and balances to ensure sentences reflect the intent of
Parliament while protecting the public.

The case involves two significant grow ops run by a Courtenay man
with no criminal record. The gross value of the crop was something
like $350,000.

Michael Van Santvoord pleaded guilty.

Despite a Crown request for a 12-month jail term, provincial court
Judge Brian Saunders imposed a $20,000 fine. He noted higher court
judgments that had cited frustration in enforcing marijuana laws that
appeared to have little popular support.

And he embraced the argument that fines, by reducing the profit
potential, were the most fitting way to deal with grow ops.

Not so, said the justices who heard the appeal. They noted that B.C.
courts have accepted evidence grow ops can threaten public safety.
And the justices added that their continued proliferation shows that
current sentences were not working.

Jail sentences are needed in most cases, they found.

Justice Catherine Ryan added emphasis: "Whatever a judge's private
views, his or her duty requires that judge to enforce the laws that
Parliament has lawfully enacted." The Appeal Court imposed a 12-month
jail term.

There are few absolutes in our justice system, nor should there be.
It is based on judges who balance deterrence, rehabilitation and
society's attitudes toward offences -- all within the confines of the
laws written by legislators. But there is an effective system of
checks and balances. And, as this case suggests, that system, for the
most part, works remarkably well.