AIR NEEDS CLEARING IN RAHIM JAFFER CASE

Perhaps the police messed up when they arrested Rahim Jaffer on a
rural Ontario road last September. Maybe Jaffer just had a good lawyer.

Or it could be both.

Whatever the case, allegations of preferential treatment and a
two-tiered justice system are swirling around Jaffer's plea bargain
that resulted in him getting a measly $500 fine for careless driving.

Gone with the wind were the more serious charges of having a
blood-alcohol level above the legal limit, possession of cocaine and
speeding because, as the prosecutor explained: "There was no
reasonable prospect of conviction."

Did the former Edmonton-Strathcona MP just get a lucky break because
of an improper police search, as the Toronto Star alleged, quoting
police sources?

Was there something more to this case that prompted the sudden
withdrawal of the criminal charges?

We will never know.

Jaffer is a well-known former politician who campaigned against drug
use. For that reason alone, the public has a right to know why the
case against Jaffer fell apart.

The air needs to be cleared. We need to put to rest the rumours Jaffer
may have been treated differently than another accused because of who
he is.

Let me be clear.

I don't believe for a minute that there was any political interference
or legal impropriety in the way Jaffer's case was handled.

But, as has been said, not only must justice be done; it must be seen
to be done.

I agree with NDP justice critic Joe Comartin, a lawyer, that complete
transparency in this case is essential.

"There isn't a Canadian, I think, in the country, with perhaps the
exception of Mr. Jaffer, who doesn't feel that what happened . appears
on the surface to be favourable treatment, he told reporters.

"A one-line explanation from the prosecutor that she felt there wasn't
sufficient evidence to get a conviction is simply not sufficient in
these circumstances," said Comartin.

The Ontario Attorney General's ministry may not be required to explain
in detail why charges are dropped in various matters.

But in this case, isn't the public entitled to an explanation?

"I think that's a great question," says University of Alberta law
professor Steven Penney, who nevertheless, wouldn't comment on it
because it's not strictly a legal issue. He did point out, however,
that charges are dismissed and plea agreements involving lesser
offences are arranged all the time.

"That is a . feature of any system where the police are responsible
for laying charges," Penney explains.

Police officers aren't legal experts and they don't normally seek the
Crown's advice before laying charges, he says.

It's up to the Crown to review cases and make sure there haven't been
Charter violations or other missteps that could undermine the
prosecution, he adds.

The Ontario Provincial Police maintain they did nothing wrong in the
Jaffer case.

"The police conducted a thorough and detailed investigation and . they
had reasonable grounds to proceed with criminal charges," says OPP
Const. Peter Leon.

What really sank the Crown's case will remain a secret.

"The presumption of innocence and basic considerations of fairness to
the accused limit the ability to comment on the case," says Brendan
Crawley, spokesman for the Ontario Attorney General's ministry.

A lucky break, indeed.