Judge Shopping
Thirteen courageous Alberta farmers will surrender themselves to
provincial authorities near the end of October to begin serving jail
sentences for refusing to pay fines imposed by the courts of Alberta for
selling their own grain. These men are not criminals. They do
not deserve to go to jail. They are just average citizens.
They teach Sunday school, coach little league ball and hockey, drive their
kids to dance lessons, since in the church choir, and perform hours of
volunteer work trying to make their communities a better place to
live. These men are the real heart and soul of rural Alberta.
Why are they being jailed? At least for these brave souls, the
choice and the vision is clear. They are going to jail because they
are willing to stand for freedom and their conviction that they never relinquished
their right to market their own grain. Like farms in Ontario who are
able to market their own grain without having to buy it back from the
Canadian Wheat Board, the believe Western farmers should have that same
freedom.
The fines imposed on them could have been avoided if the practice,
described by the Western Report Magazine as "judge shopping",
had not been used. This is a custom used by defense lawyers and prosecutors
alike to "shop" for a judge or judges who may be ideologically
predisposed to their client's cause. The Manitoba government is
discouraging the practice, however, too late to help prairie farmers who
were the victims of the practice and not the beneficiaries.
Farmers who were victimized by what seasoned defense lawyers described
as "charges that have no basis in law." That did not deter
the Canada Customs investigators and the prosecution. The continued
to "shop" until they found judges who by their judgments created
"jurisprudence that did not previously exist." By their
actions a dangerous precedent was established that threatens our basic
individual rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms. The precedents created in Manitoba lead to the
convictions of the Alberta farmers.
The records show that provincial court judge Connor, who acquitted
David Sawatsky never presided over another trial involving farmers.
The Connor decision to acquit was upheld by the Manitoba Court of Appeal
and that should have established the precedent upon which all future cases
were judged. Not so. By "judge shopping" the prosecutors
were able to find a judge or judges who disagreed with the Conner decision
and the Court of Appeal.
The prosecutors must have been confident that they had shopped
successfully for the right judge in order to be able to point to the
prisoners box and bellow, "Look at him, your Honour. He even
looks like a criminal." The judge agreed. If he looks
like a criminal, he must be a criminal, and if he is a criminal he must be
guilty. "Jurisprudence that did not previously exist" is
now entrenched and will soon be enforced against the Alberta farmers as
well.
The manslaughter conviction of Alpna Patel was rightfully overturned in
a Baltimore, Maryland court on Monday, October 7, 2002 because the
prosecutor made "improper prejudicial statements." In his
summation, the prosecutor referred to Ms. Patel as "poor little rich
girl." Just imagine what the consequences would have been had
the prosecutor said, "Look at her your Honor. She even looks
like a criminal." Perhaps that is only allowed in Manitoba.
Ken Dillen
October 14, 2002 |
