|
Earlier this week, I had a chat with one of Canada’s most successful and respected criminal lawyers. I asked him what the conviction rate all those accused of drunk driving in Quebec.
About 80 percent don’t fight it, he said. Of the 20 percent who do, two-thirds win.
Why such a high win ratio?
Lawyers shop for judges who they know have higher than average acquittal rates, he replied. If they draw the wrong judge, they ask for a delay until they’re guaranteed of appearing before their man.
Let’s say we hear that a certain judge has a higher than average acquittal rate for traffic violations. There is no way of determining just how high, because that would necessitate combing through the court registry office manually.
In other words, there is no mechanism by which the public can easily determine a judge’s conviction rate. Only someone working in that jurisdiction — a lawyer, perhaps, or a judge’s clerk — would know that.
Even if we know that a certain judge acquits a high percentage of the folks nailed after blowing into the balloon, not even the justice and public security ministers can touch him. That’s because the Canadian legal system confers untouchable status on the judiciary. Only the Canadian Judicial Review Board can investigate a judge.
That frustration is what led the Harper government to institute mandatory minimums for those convicted of drunk driving and a reverse onus on anyone who tries to argue that the breathalyzer lied. As of June, you’ll have to prove the breathalyzer was defective.
In other words, it will become harder for a judge to toss out a drunk-driving case on a technical issue. Invariably, lawyers will concentrate on other weak links — the integrity of the chain of evidence, perhaps, or the testimony of our police officers.
I’ve talked to police officers about this, and frankly, they’ve become paranoid about whether certain judges are on the take or into the bottle. How else, they wonder, would any judge rule so consistently for those who are so brazenly contesting what would appear to be an open-and-shut drunk driving case?
We should care, they say, because every day a cop is in court testifying in a traffic case, he or she isn’t patrolling our streets. We should care because every drunk or reckless driver who escapes justice is emboldened to continue his or her antisocial behavior.
I’ve heard their stories about being able to buy a judge. It’s also a standing joke at some political gatherings. But it’s one thing to make snide remarks and another thing to stand up in court and prove it.
There are those who argue that elected judges and prosecutors tend to produce judgments more in step with what society wants. I see no benefit to a system that produced a hypocrite like Elliott Spitzer and a 78-month sentence for Conrad Black.
That said, why should the conviction rate of our judiciary be such a deep, dark secret available only to insiders?
I want to be able to write: “After several delays, the accused appeared before Judge So and So, whose conviction rate for drunk/reckless driving makes him/her one of the most lenient judges in the region/province/nation.”
Surely, a society fixated on goals-against averages, sacks and turnovers can get their collective heads around the need for a ratings system for the gatekeepers of our legal system? |
