CANADIANS DESERVE AN EXPLANATION

Did Mr. Jaffer receive special treatment or did he get a break that
others before the court sometimes get?

Ontario justice officials should explain to Canadians why Rahim Jaffer
got what many Canadians are calling a 'slap on the wrist' after
cocaine possession and drunk driving charges against him were
withdrawn and he was convicted of a lesser offence of careless
driving. Such an explanation would benefit not only Canadians, but Mr.
Jaffer himself.

Until Canadians are told why Mr. Jaffer got what even the judge
himself called "a break", many will conclude the former MP and husband
of a current cabinet minister simply got special treatment. That
impression, in the court of public opinion, would dog Mr. Jaffer
indefinitely, and left unchallenged, would only confirm suspicions
that he and others with connections get a better deal when they find
themselves before a judge.

Mr. Jaffer, once known for his tough stance on drugs, was fined $500
last week after the more serious charges of drug possession and drunk
driving were withdrawn and he was convicted of careless driving. The
prosecutor told the court convictions on the more serious charges were
not likely because there would be "significant legal issues" in
proceeding on those charges. The judge said he would not interfere
with this decision, but added this for Mr. Jaffer's benefit: "I'm sure
you can recognize a break when you see one."

Since then, Opposition MPs have blasted government for hypocrisy in
not condemning the plea arrangment, and for being silent "only when
the law's being flouted by one of their own." Even some Conservatives
have suggested that the public is entitled to a full explanation as to
why the MP received such a light sentence.

Ontario justice officials should try to find a way to respond to this
reasonable request. It's not uncommon for plea arrangements to be made
if the Crown determines it cannot prove a more serious charge. Our
judicial system is an institution steeped in tradition and protocol,
and it would be fair to say it serves Canadians well. But it's not
perfect. In the course of an arrest, or an investigation, witnesses
and evidence may be weak, or human error can occur, and the Crown has
to make the call on whether a charge can be successfully prosecuted.
If not, it's prudent to go with a lesser charge.

Mr. Jaffer isn't the only one who has ever received "a break", but in
light of the perception that he received leniency because of who he
is, justice officials should go the extra mile to explain why that's
not the case.