JUDGES MUST APPLY THE LAW AND HOLD THEIR BIASES

The four-year jail sentence imposed on former Toronto Maple Leafs
captain Rob Ramage by Justice Alexander Sosna and upheld by the
Ontario Court of Appeal last week is evidence some judges do treat
impaired driving cases seriously.

Many readers shared their theories on why some judges don't follow
appellate directions or the law in impaired cases.

Many speculated about the drinking habits of judges. One reader made
the argument: "Lawyers and judges are some of the worst drinking and
driving offenders anywhere. Alcoholism runs rampant in these
professions due to the enormous demands and stress of the jobs. In
fact, Osgoode Hall has one of the most impressive and well-stocked
bars in the province -- if not the country -- so it should come as no
surprise that those who so frequently and freely imbibe often deliver
verdicts that are lenient, outrageous, and in some cases even criminal
(pardon the expression)."

I'm not aware of any statistics on impaired driving by lawyers or
judges, but another group of readers think some judges don't follow
the law because they disagree with it.

"The judges disagree with the method currently being applied to deal with
alcohol addiction. Translation: Sending someone to jail is not the solution
and until we find a better one, sending a drunk to jail isn't the long-term
solution," a reader wrote.

But judges are paid to apply the law, not to decide cases based on
personal views.

Perhaps the most blatant example of a judge letting his personal
opinion get in the way of the law can be seen in the 2008 Zeyu Song
decision.

Song pleaded guilty to production of marijuana. He operated a
large-scale grow-op in a Brampton residential area. He stole
electricity. More than 1,400 plants were seized.

Based on prior appeal court decisions, a jail term was warranted.
Instead, Justice J. Elliott Allen imposed a conditional sentence,
meaning no jail time. He made no efforts to disguise his personal
views: "really what we're doing by prohibiting the production and
consumption of marijuana is giving the Hells Angels several billion
dollars worth of income every year."

Late in 2009, the Ontario Court of Appeal reprimanded Allen stating,
"judges are entitled to hold personal and political opinions as much
as anyone else. But they are not free to permit those views to colour
or frame their trial or sentencing decisions."

Another misguided sentencing decision took place in 2008 and was
corrected by Ontario's appeal court in late 2009.

Ahmad and Mehran Mirzakhalili were convicted of arson and conspiracy
to commit fraud. As with any case of arson, they risked the lives of
firefighters, but according to the appeal court, they "followed
through on their plan to blow up and burn down their own store even
after they discovered that people were working late in the adjoining
framing shop."

Yet Justice Denis J. Power granted a conditional sentence.

Ontario's appeal court imposed a jail sentence, noting "conditional
sentences are not appropriate for serious arson offence."

Judges who are unable or unwilling to follow statutes and precedents
strain our legal system. Resources are wasted and unreasonable
expectations are raised by their erroneous decisions. They create a
lack of respect for the judiciary in general and the rule of law.