Pubdate: Fri, 12 Mar 2010
Source: National Post (Canada)
Copyright: 2010 Canwest Publishing Inc.
Contact: http://drugsense.org/url/O3vnWIvC
Website: http://www.nationalpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/286

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

The explanations on offer for Rahim Jaffer's fortuitous escape from
impaired driving and drug possession charges are wholly inadequate.
The Crown says only that there was no reasonable prospect of
conviction -- which we'd hope would go without saying, given that it
dropped the charges. There are reports an inexperienced officer
somehow bungled a strip search of the former Conservative MP, tainting
key evidence -- but this is disquieting, not reassuring. And unless
the officer ordered a nude breathalyzer test, we fail to see what
bearing it should have had on the impaired driving charge.

Police said they clocked Mr. Jaffer driving 43 km/h over the speed
limit, that he failed a breathalyzer test and that they found cocaine
in his car. Any Canadian caught in such a situation would have just
cause for heart palpitations. And yet Mr. Jaffer walked away with no
criminal record and a measly $500 fine. The public has a right to know
why -- and whether this is, in fact, an unusual outcome.

The Liberals, never missing a chance to miss the point, have delighted
in insinuating that political influence was somehow in the mix: Mr.
Jaffer is the husband of federal Cabinet minister Helena Guergis. But
there's absolutely no reason to believe there's any truth behind the
allegation; this was a provincial prosecution.

The real danger is that Canadians will lose confidence in the justice
system -- not necessarily on grounds that it favours well-connected
people, but that it's simply inconsistent. It's no more important to
know the circumstances of Mr. Jaffer's big break than any other random
motorist's. What's important is that Canadians be confident that
Cabinet ministers' husbands and random motorists are treated equally
under the law.

Indeed, this should be part of a much larger and very important
conversation. The idea that excellent legal representation helped get
Mr. Jaffer off the hook, while plausible, is itself far from
reassuring. What about the schlub making do with a public defender?
Should he go to jail just because he's poor?

Ontario Attorney-General Chris Bentley has made some encouraging
noises about the public's right to an explanation. "I think the Crown
explaining more fully [its reasons for dropping the charges] is
probably an appropriate issue to be raised," he said Wednesday. Darn
right -- but Mr. Bentley should raise it himself, posthaste, and
should take on the responsibility for explaining cases like this to
his constituents. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D