JUSTIFY JAFFER DEAL

Someone Has To Reveal How Drug, Drunk-driving, Speeding Charges
Disappeared

While the secret non-trial and exoneration of former Conservative MP
Rahim Jaffer on cocaine-possession and drunk-driving charges may have
satisfied the letter of the law, it hasn't exactly enhanced public
confidence in the judicial system.

A furor erupted earlier this week after prosecutors inexplicably
dropped all criminal charges against the ex-politician.

In return, Jaffer pleaded guilty to the relatively minor traffic
offence of careless driving, and agreed to pay a $500 fine.

Jaffer was allegedly driving 43 km/h above the speed limit when he was
pulled over by Ontario Provincial Police in the early morning hours
last Sept. 11.

The ex-MP claimed to have had two beers earlier in the evening, but
blew over the legal limit on a subsequent breathalyzer test.

Police also reported finding a bag of cocaine, and charged Jaffer with
drug possession.

But a funny thing happened on the way to Jaffer's day in
court.

Apparently, the alleged bag of cocaine, the breathalyzer test, and
even the speeding data somehow became so tainted that the prosecution
decided it would be better to cut a sweetheart plea bargain with
Jaffer, rather than risk going to court and losing.

Conviction unlikely

Crown attorney Marie Balogh said in court only that there was no
reasonable prospect of a conviction.

No details. No explanations. No apologies to anyone.

That's not good enough.

Clearly, someone screwed up, and Canadians are owed a full and frank
explanation.

Sure, plea bargains to avoid lengthy trials are being cut outside
courtrooms across the country every day.

But the Jaffer case was not just another number on a court docket - he
may be equal to every other citizen in the eyes of the law, but not in
the eyes of the public.

The former Conservative MP also campaigned as an anti-drug crusader,
and is married to Conservative cabinet minister Helena Guergis,
recently in the news for yelling obscenities at P.E.I. airport
security staff.

In short, the case was bound to draw intense public scrutiny that
would not be satisfied by a closed-door deal.

So much secrecy has so far spawned no end of speculation, accusations
and conspiracy theories.

The federal opposition parties, for instance, predictably turned the
Commons air blue, demanding to know how the "tough-on-crime" Tories
could accept such a not-so-tough deal for one of their own.

Delicious as the political optics of all that might me, the case was
dealt with in Ontario provincial court.

Even the judge in the case, Justice Douglas Maund, was the target of
an Internet mud-toss alluding to his past ties to the Progressive
Conservative party.

Fact is, Maund was almost a bystander to Jaffer's near-walk - the
judge could only rule on the charges presented by the Crown, and most
of those had already been stayed.

Needs explanation

One way or another, someone in high office has some explaining to
do.

If Jaffer was wrongly accused, he is owed a public
apology.

If the police blew the case, they should be publicly
disciplined.

If the prosecutors offered a plea bargain they didn't have to, they
should be publicly held to account.

In the enduring words of a British chief justice: "It is of
fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but
should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done."

At the very least, the case should have gone to trial.