REGION'S LETTER ON DRUG CHARGES NOT EXPECTED TO INFLUENCE JUDGES

Local judges likely won't be influenced by letters from Waterloo
Region council urging them to hand out stiffer penalties to people
convicted of growing marijuana indoors, two Canadian law professors
suggested yesterday.

While some local lawyers plan to ask for stays on their marijuana
cultivation cases, the professors say they likely won't get them, and
that local judges can still fairly hear drug cases.

"I can't imagine any judge being influenced by this," said Alan
Young, a criminal law professor at Osgoode Hall Law School. "We
expect police to take a hard line on certain crimes. It's not that
unusual."

Regional council last month passed a resolution calling for a
mandatory five-year prison term for anyone convicted of indoor
marijuana cultivation.

Council sent copies of the resolution to all local judges and
included a resolution from the police services board. Federal and
provincial members of Parliament, plus the solicitor generals of
Ontario and Canada, also got the letters.

The region, and other area councils, are concerned with the growing
proliferation of indoor pot operations because of the increased
availability of the drug and the dangers involved. The growers steal
hydro by rigging a crude system to bypass the regular meter. Two
fires have been sparked as a result.

Two local judges suggested Friday the letters were an improper
attempt by the region to influence judges, who are supposed to be
independent. Justice Ron Sills of Kitchener's Superior Court said he
plans to contact Justice Patrick LeSage, Chief Justice of Ontario's
Superior Court of Justice, for advice.

A spokesman for LeSage's office would only say yesterday, "The chief
justice has nothing further to add to the comments of Justice Sills."

Brennan Smart, president of the local criminal lawyers association,
said several defence lawyers are planning to ask for stays of their
marijuana cultivation cases. They feel their clients' Charter right
to have a trial by an impartial judge has been violated.

The appearance of justice may have been undermined, said David
Paciocco, a law professor at the University of Ottawa. Even if judges
feel they can comfortably hear marijuana cases without bias, "they're
going to have to ask whether a reasonably informed member of the
community would know they're acting independently," he said yesterday.

Despite this, Paciocco isn't convinced judges have been compromised.
They only need to publicly put it on record that they received the
letter, and state that they have not been influenced, he said.

"They may be able to overcome any concern about public perception,"
Paciocco said.

To suggest judges should take themselves off cases "might strike some
as over-reaction," he said.

Young agreed, saying legal precedent suggests lawyers won't get stays
of their cases. The letter was not a comment on a specific individual
case, but only general comments about marijuana cultivation, he said.

"There's been cases in the past where accused tried to get their
charges stayed as a result of improvident political comments. They
rarely get it," he said.

'Terrible Thing To Do'

Still, Young says sending the letters was "really just a terrible
thing to do. "It was an unjustifiable attempt to influence a court
without any evidence."

Smart is fuming about the letter, but trusts local judges to hear his
cases involving marijuana grows.

"It's an outrageous act by an elected body," he said. "What it
amounts to is extra-judicial evidence before the court."

But Smart said he plans to go ahead with cases using local judges.
"We trust our judges can disabuse themselves of improper influences,"
he said.

Asking for mandatory minimum sentences for certain crimes is a
worrisome trend that's increasing, Paciocco said. He said it takes
away a judge's discretion to impose sentences tailored to individual
people.

"We sentence not just the offence, but the offender," he said.