IT'S TIME TO SHINE A LIGHT ON JUSTICE SYSTEM

Ex-MP's Plea-Bargain Must Be Explained

According to Justice Douglas Maund of the Ontario Court of Justice,
Rahim Jaffer received "a break." And according to Ontario's
attorney-general, it's none of your business why.

Jaffer is, of course, the former Alberta Conservative MP who, as a
result of a plea bargain, pleaded guilty to careless driving this
week in Orangeville, Ont., after the Crown withdrew charges of
possession of cocaine and driving with a blood-alcohol level over the
legal limit.

Naturally, given Jaffer's former position, and his wife Helena
Guergis's current position as a cabinet minister in the federal
government, the Liberals were quick to imply that the Conservatives
were somehow involved in springing Jaffer, that their ostensibly
tough-on-crime policies don't apply to one of their own.

This isn't a wise move for the Liberals, though, since Jaffer's
prosecution was a provincial affair, and there's no evidence of any
Conservative involvement. The Liberals would be much better off if
they spent their time developing rational responses to the
Conservatives' admittedly irrational justice policies, rather than
cooking up conspiracy theories about Jaffer.

That said, it is not unreasonable for the public to assume that
something is amiss here, that the Jaffer case smacks of preferential
justice, even if the Conservatives were not involved. Such
assumptions are inevitable given the woefully inadequate way Ontario
officials answered questions about why the charges were withdrawn.

Crown lawyer Marie Balogh stated that there were "significant legal
reasons" for dropping the charges, that there was no reasonable
prospect of conviction. But this isn't an answer -- it's a tautology.
The Crown has an obligation to withdraw charges if there is no
reasonable prospect of conviction, so to say the Crown withdrew the
charges because there was no reasonable prospect of conviction is to
say ... well, nothing.

On Wednesday, Ontario Attorney-General Chris Bentley seemed to agree
as he stated that the Crown ought to explain "more fully" its reasons
for dropping the charges.

Fair enough, though since the case has concluded, it's the
attorney-general's responsibility to address the matter. I called the
A-G's office to ask specifically why charges were withdrawn. The
staff apparently wanted to communicate with me by e-mail instead of
telephone, and then proceeded not to answer my question anyway.

Instead, spokesman Brendan Crawley provided me with another stock
answer, in which he repeated the business about there being no
reasonable prospect of conviction, and continued "because there were
issues relating to the admissibility of evidence that was available."

This seems to confirm rumours that there was a problem with the way
police searched Jaffer, but damned if I know. What I do know,
however, is that by continuing to provide non-answers, the Ontario
attorney-general has guaranteed that rumours will persist, including
rumours that Jaffer received preferential treatment after he was
stopped by police for speeding through the village of Palgrave last Sept. 11.

This, obviously, will have a deleterious impact on the reputation of
the justice system, and if Bentley cares about that, he ought to
offer forthwith a proper explanation as to why charges were withdrawn.

If Bentley is unwilling to do so, prominent Toronto criminal lawyer
Steven Skurka offers an alternative. Aware that Jaffer's reputation
has also been harmed by rumours he received preferential justice,
Skurka suggests that Jaffer's lawyer, Howard Rubel, explain why
charges were withdrawn. This would require Rubel to get permission
from both the Crown and Jaffer, though one would expect Jaffer to
consent, since the secrecy surrounding the plea bargain isn't doing
him any favours.

Indeed, the secrecy isn't doing anyone any favours, least of all the
justice system.

"Sunlight is the best disinfectant," said former U.S. Supreme Court
Justice Louis Brandeis, and it's time for Ontario justice officials
to shine a little light on what the public will otherwise see as a dark affair.