Security & Fraud

Judicial system teetering on the edge of cliff

I can't understand our judicial system, and I'm often involved with it. It used to be that if you committed a crime and the police felt that they had enough evidence to provide for a reasonable expectation of a conviction then they would proceed with it.

These days however, the Crown Attorney's offices are governed by a report known as the Martin Commission Report which among other things, instructs the Crown Attorney that they must prioritize their cases and pursue only ones in which a conviction is virtually certain.

Although I sympathize with the Crown's office because they, like many other government organizations, are facing severe budget constraints, I feel that we are on the edge of the cliff. It is becoming well known, particularly in complicated cases that the Crown will be unwilling to proceed. This is providing criminals, particulary white collar criminals with a licence to commit crimes with out worry about facing the consequences. In addition, to set the parameters so severely on whether to proceed to trial virtually makes the system pointless. If you only proceed when you are certain of a conviction, what is the point of having a trial?

After all, isn't the purpose of having a trial in the first place to determine whether someone is guilty or innocent?

Everyone says that it all comes down to costs. I believe that there are many areas in which costs can be controlled in the judicial system, leaving funds available to conduct trials when it is in the public's interest to do so.

In Sweden for example, the police take a different approach to minor crime. They are given the authority and asked to act as problem solvers. Consider a situation in which a son steals his mother's purse, and is later found by the police with some evidence, perhaps her identification, linking him to the crime. Here in Canada, the police would make an arrest and proceed through the rest of the judicial system. In Sweden, the police would be viewed with disdain if they proceeded on that basis.

They would be expected to meet with the boy and his mother to come to some arrangement whereby the son would face his mother, apologize, make restitution and perhaps perform some community service. The police there would be happy, because their crime statistics would not rise. They are evaluated on the basis of their ability to manage such statistics.

Here it seems that reducing crime through problem solving is not encouraged. In fact, budgets allocated to police may be increased as statistics rise, thereby providing a reward in a sense for failure. At the very least, there is little incentive for police to make them fall. In fairness to the police, they are neither encouraged to problem solve crimes nor are they evaluated on their ability to do so.

I can't tell you how many cases I have seen before the courts where hour upon hour of time is wasted just setting a date and then a new date for a trial. This does not fall solely in the lap of the Crown, or the judiciary but defence lawyers and their clients are to blame as well. There are many cases, in which there are over a dozen or more attendances at court before a trial begins, and sometimes it never does.

In New York, where they have adopted the broken windows theory, whereby all crimes are prosecuted, even the small ones, it has had the effect of reducing major crime and minor crimes alike. Although I'm not sure that is the only or best way to proceed here, I think we must look at innovative approaches in other jurisdictions with a view of determining a cost effective way of maintaining the integrity of the system.

What we really need is some leadership at both the provincial and federal level. We need to gain a consensus between all those involved about how we can maintain the integrity of the system within the budget constraints set out by the government, and those constraints must be reasonable. At the present time, everyone involved has their own interest to protect. We have to get beyond that, establish realistic budgets for the system and run it more efficiently. Because, if we don't, we will find ourselves in a situation where certain crimes like violent crimes are prosecuted because of their obvious affront to society and other crimes, well you'll just get a walk.

Bill Joynt is a well-known private investigator with The Investigator's Group in Toronto. He can be contacted at 416-955-9450 or by e-mail at billj@investigators-group.com.