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.
[More]
Related:
Part if this seems to be that there was a bungled strip search of Jaffer.
Since when do you get strip searched for speeding. Even if he blew over isn’t that just a night in the tank?
I’ll hang onto the name of that lawyer since I live in the area.
Liberal Provincial Government why would they do a favour or a perceived favour to an ex Conservative M.P. ?
Unless they knew people would suspect political influence or encouraged the impression that he was getting special treatment ? Maybe a little too much ” conspiracy theory ” looniness ” for me to believe that the prosecutors would factor this into their decision / pre-decision, but that doesn’t mean that Liberals and MSM couldn’t see the up side for them of creating a stink.
I doubt that Harper, the Conservative Government and small c conservative would even have wanted giving Rahim a pass on this ( assuming that the charges where actually justified i.e. ” GUILTY “, even if the evidence had to be throw out for technical reasons ).
We might even want the book thrown at him even more than soft on crime Liberals.
I tend to think that the system worked as it works for just about everybody who has a good lawyer and was smart enough to shut up when arrested and let his lawyer do the talking for him. If the arrest was flawed and the search abusive I think it’s right he got off ! As much as we might deplore the guilty getting off on a technicality we might appreciate the protection ourselves if we ever where victims of an abusive search. ( even more so a search that lead to no arrest or charges because we hadn’t done a thing, just looked suspicious ! )
Where things break down in when someone guilty of a serious violent crime gets off on a technicality and the reasoning about his rights being violated are contrary to a reasonable interpretation of abuse of process.
Anyway, got away from the specifics of this case a bit to a general debate about just how much protection the Constitution gives us from a police state versus being soft on crime by reading in too much into these protections: This is why our Supreme Court judge should actually have good judgement and not just political correctness.
The only thing bothering me about this situation is the secrecy. If the Crown’s reasons were valid they should become public knowledge but perhaps “libel law” has a lot to do with “zippered lips”.
That’s my best guess.
The court’s decision certainly hasnt done the Tories any good in Geurgis’s riding where I live. Even hard core Tories are miffed at what happened.
The Tories themselves should file complaints with the Ontario Justice Council But the focus clearly is on the provincially appointed Crown Prosecutor.
Being a Crown prosecutor is like being a cop. You never know which decision is going to drop you into deep “kak”. This was a bad one in hindsight but not known at the time she decided (although she should have known if she was politically aware).
My view — the Crown in the case should release the information to protect herself.
What happens next will be up to the motoring public.
If the police had a cocaine charge laid, then they had evidence. Same with the impaired driving. I’d guess that the investigating officer (in fact the OPP) is some ticked off about the entire outcome. My money says that this Crown was likely told what to do. If she had the courage to object she would have been overruled and told to just do as she is told. The unspoken consequence of course would be EI. It would not be the crown attorney’s decision on whether or not to release information, that would be a decision of the head of the her department. If there is hanky panky involved here and if the justice system in Ontario is as poltically ‘sensitive’ as it appears to be here in Manitoba, therein lies the answer. The perception is terrible in this case and better to come clean if there is no wrongdoing than get cruxified if there is and it has to be forced out.
How amusing to hear Liberals whining about the criminal justice system they created when it doesn’t give them the results they want! They’ve fought against every attempt by Harper’s minority government to reform this mess.
If Jaffer was anyone other than a former Conservative MP, there wouldn’t be a word of protest but no… they want blood and they’ve been denied by the watered-down injustice system which encourages the slap on the wrist approach.
How many times have I put forward solid charges only to have the Crown play “Let’s Make A Deal” for a plea to a lesser included offence and tossing out the serious charges? More times than I care to remember.