|
Judge
Baynton's decision | Dufour
| McKillop | Cline
| Saskatchewan
government applies to intervene on its own behalf
Professor Dan
Ish
All this
bad lawyering has to come from somewhere. What is being taught
at our law school? The following suggests bullshit baffles brains
Justice minister had
to appeal Klassen ruling
Dan Ish, StarPhoenix, Personal
Viewpoint,, February 19, 2004
Following is
the personal viewpoint of the writer, a professor of law and
acting dean of law at the University of Saskatchewan.
The decision of the trial judge
in the Klassen case and the subsequent actions of the provincial
government have received considerable press, public and political
attention. Most of the commentary has been highly critical of
the government's actions. There is no doubt that the police investigation
and the subsequent prosecution has caused serious injustice to
a number of innocent people. The harm caused over many years
is incalculable and can only be partially remedied by acknowledgement
and compensation.
The decision of the minister
of justice and attorney general to appeal the trial court decision,
in itself, has been reacted to with responses ranging from puzzlement
to severe criticism by some. It must be recognized, however,
that the attorney general had little choice in his decision to
appeal.
Constitutionally, the Office
of the Attorney General is reposed with obligations that do not
fall to other government ministers. While the attorney general
is an elected politician, he or she has the overarching responsibility
for balancing two competing, but compelling, interests -- protection
of the individual (especially from harmful actions of the state)
and the preservation of the prosecutorial function of the state.
In today's climate of heightened
awareness and sensitivity of individual rights, the first interest
is often highlighted and focused upon. The reaction to the Klassen
case and its aftermath quite rightly is the best example of this.
The second major responsibility
of the attorney general concerns the administration of justice
and the prosecuting function of government. The state must pursue
criminal prosecutions to protect the public. This must be carried
out with a high degree of integrity and professionalism but with
sufficient latitude not to jeopardize the diligence of prosecutors,
police and other agents in carrying out their functions.
The appeal by the attorney
general of the decision of the trial judge in the Klassen case
is completely understandable. If the attorney general is of the
view that the test of what constitutes malicious prosecution
may have been expanded by the decision of the trial judge beyond
that determined by the Supreme Court of Canada recently, he has
a public duty to pursue the appeal. As a matter of public policy,
the issue of the parameters of civil liability for malicious
prosecution is one of significant importance to the administration
of justice. Moreover, it is an issue that certainly merits the
consideration of a panel of judges of Saskatchewan's highest
court, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.
The public policy consequences
of not having the higher court review the definition and application
of the law surrounding malicious prosecution are such that the
attorney general of Saskatchewan really has no option but to
appeal the ruling of the trial judge. The consequences, of course,
include a possible serious reluctance of police officers, prosecutors
and other workers to pursue cases of serious wrongdoing, particularly
those involving vulnerable children, for fear of being held liable
for their actions.
For similar reasons, in his
capacity as employer, the attorney general must stand behind
the employees who were acting in the course of their employment
when the harmful actions occurred. This is particularly so when
they were acting with the full knowledge and direction of their
superiors, some of whom are no longer employed by government.
In short, the actions of the attorney general in pursuing an
appeal are not only completely understandable but are necessary.
As the guardian of the administration of justice in this province,
the attorney general has a duty to balance complex interests
that have surfaced in the context of this particular case.
Response
February 20, 2004
To the editor
I am a bit perplexed by the
personal viewpoint of Dan Ish (Justice Minister had to appeal
Klassen ruling, Feb. 19/04)
He states "The Attorney
General has the responsibility for balancing two compelling interests
-- protection of the individual . . . and the preservation of
the prosecutorial function of the state." Why are these
competing interests? Isn't justice the "overarching responsibility"
of the Attorney-General?
As an employer the Attorney-General
should demand accountability. If more accountability had been
demanded of his employees the Klassen fiasco could have been
avoided.
Judge Baynton sat through seven
weeks of trial, heard all the evidence and gave his reasoned
judgement. I would feel better about the pronouncements of Frank
Quennell, Lorne Calvert and Dan Ish if I could be assured that
they had read the judgement carefully. This is a particular case
based on particular evidence and Judge Baynton paid it the honour
of treating it as such, not as a model whereby the department
employees can escape accountability.
Laura Jones
Saskatoon
|
Truth can never be
told so as to be understood, and not be believ'd. William Blake, The Proverbs of Hell
Truth suppress'd, whether
by courts or crooks, will find an avenue to be told. Sheila Steele, injusticebusters.com
If you hold the mouth
of Truth, It will burst out its rib-cage. Somali proverb
Publisher : Sheila
Steele
Got something
to say about this or any other stories on this site? Go to injusticebustersblog Participate!
- injusticebusters
court advice :
- How to walk yourself through the justice system
-
- Why you should dump your preliminary hearing (written July 1998 and still valid)
-
- Sermonette:
The
Naked Truth -- (You
will find links to many more sermonettes in the sidebar on this
page
Another target
of Dueck's malice: : Wilf Hathway
Our activism
contributed greatly to the good vibes which happened around the
civil trial.
Index
to the stories on this website
This is not
regularly updated so if you are looking for a particular story
and you have a name or keyword, please use the site search engine(at
the bottom of the page) which IS regularly updated
Index to Saskatoon Police stories
This is a pretty good scrapbook
for the 1998-2002 period.

Inquiry into the malicious prosecution of David
Milgaard untanling 36 years of Saskatchewan police and Crown
misconduct: : Opening day 1 | 2
| 3 | 4
| 5 | 6
| 7 |
-
- Stephen Williams:
Canadian writer subject to Stasi-like treatment by Canadian police
- Terry
Arnold: : Snitch a
suicide?
- RCMP
scenario stings: Brian
Hutchinson starts digging
- Gary
wells: Faulty eye-witness
testimony
-
- Tulia,
Texas
- Gilmer,
Texas
- Willie
Upshaw
- Wrongfully convicted in Canada
- Foster Parent false accusations
- Martensville
- Don
Smith obscenity trial: an obscene conviction
- James
Lockyer
- Hurricane
Carter
- Johnny Cochran speaks up for
Bill Sampson
- Vopnis
- Abdulai
Mohamed

The Terrible Story behind the Atif Rafay and
Sebastian Burns convictions

Trial
set for June 15
We
know part of this disclosure is a forged statement and perjured
affidavit from a Winnipeg cop
-
-
-
-

The
Crown is still fighting Fred Poirier -- and they are losing.
Secret Commissions Case from Northern B.C.
-
-
- 2005: In
the United States the proven wrongful convictions just keep coming
at us!
Canadians who
have been wrongfully convicted because of improper investigations
combined with zealous Crown
A
round-up of wrongful convictions in Canada
|