Q:Why do we spend so much money and time on court cases where people are clearly guilty? Why isn’t there an easier way to do it that would reduce my taxes?
A:This question is asked often but runs against the current of centuries of jurisprudence.
Our legal system is based on fundamental assumptions, and you will have trouble with it if you don’t agree with those assumptions.
For example, the presumption of innocence is at the core of our system of criminal justice. Everyone who is accused of a crime is innocent until enough evidence is adduced to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty.
Read Also
Stock dogs show off herding skills at Ag in Motion
Stock dogs draw a crowd at Ag in Motion. Border collies and other herding breeds are well known for the work they do on the farm.
You say this is a waste of time when such people are “clearly guilty.”
What if you, your spouse or child were suddenly picked up by the police and accused of a horrible crime? What if the police said they had lots of evidence and that the person was clearly guilty? If it was a member of your family, you would not be satisfied with the state sending that person directly to jail with no rights and no opportunity to defend himself. You would be outraged.
Consider a recent Ontario case. A 60-year-old man with a significant hearing problem was charged with three serious sexual assault charges. He attended court and thought he was going to have a trial in which he would see and hear what the people accusing him had to say. He thought he would have a chance to defend or explain himself.
Nothing of the sort happened.
First, the sound system set up to deal with his hearing problem didn’t work properly. He couldn’t hear what was happening and didn’t understand what was going on.
Next, the prosecutor read out the charges and he, through his lawyer, pleaded not guilty. However, his lawyer said he had no submissions to make on the charges. The prosecutor said he didn’t have any submissions either. The trial judge did not bother to speak directly with the man or confirm that he was content to be found guilty.
The judge pronounced him guilty without the crown calling a single witness and sentenced him to jail for 15 months. The man had not even heard much of what was happening, thought he was there for a trial and within minutes was being carted off to jail for 15 months.
That’s fast. That’s efficient. That’s cheap. It’s also a travesty, according to the appeal court that reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial.
Justice Watt of the Ontario Court of Appeal determined that this “cannibalized procedure” violated this individual’s rights to a fair trial and ordered new proceedings.
Remember, people also thought David Milgaard, Donald Marshall and Guy-Paul Morin were guilty, but full inquiries proved otherwise. Short-cut justice is no justice at all.
The right to confront your accuser and defend yourself against charges is enshrined in our free and democratic society.
Rick Danyliuk is a lawyer with McDougall Gauley LLP in Saskatoon.
