The Supremes have ruled that it is ok for the crown to screen jurors for criminal convictions but they must share their results with defense counsel. Sounds about right.
In three cases, the first and second were written by Justice Moldaver and the third by Justice Karakatsanis, the Supreme Court expressed some concern about the practice but not enough to overturn the convictions.
Justice Moldaver got his chance, however, to continue his style of equal admonition. Reading his two judgments one could easily figure out that defence counsel were to blame for what happened. At one point, he even states:
First, jury selection is not a game and it should not be approached as though it were. Winning and losing are concepts that ought not to be associated with it. The process is not governed by the strictures of the adversarial model, nor should it be, in my view. The idea at the end of the day is not to obtain a jury that is partial to one side or the other. We are looking for jurors who are eligible, impartial, representative and competent. The jury does not belong to the parties; it belongs to the people.
Prior to his elevation to the Supreme Court, Justice Moldaver had been on the Ontario Court of Appeal and his nomination raised some concerns at the time:
Moldaver is known for his outspoken opinions on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the performance of Canada’s defence lawyers — who he took to task in a 2006 speech, accusing them of slowing down cases using unnecessary Charter motions concerning how police collect evidence. Part of the speech also hypothesized that part of the motivation for lawyers to do so was to earn higher fees.
Burstein said that Moldaver has always been an “ardent defender of the factually innocent,” but that recently he has developed a more “distinct ideology.”
“We have long disagreed with his view that defence counsel are to blame for long trials and are comforted by the reports showing that we do not control the length of criminal cases,” he says. “Hopefully, we will now see a return to his earlier way of thinking about criminal justice and the Charter.
I too have always wondered if our legal culture, especially the American, over-emphasizes procedure over substance. Perhaps, Justice Moldaver may be able to shape a jurisprudence that reverses the focus.
I should say that I was not necessarily one of those concerned. After reading comments like this one from the previous story:
Bruce Ryder of York University’s Osgoode Law School said both judges will do a good job, but the appointments were “disappointing.”
“The Ontario Court of Appeal is the best court in the country and it is jammed packed with stellar jurists and I think the government could have done a lot better,” he said.
I thought, wow - well, good on the PM for choosing these two.
Recent Comments