What Justice? 

The (Toronto) Star, Insight, pg. IN7

Re:Drug, drunk driving charges dropped against former Tory MP, March 10

Something smells about the outcome of the legal case against former MP Rahim Jaffer. He left court with a $500 fine for careless driving, a charge he didn't even face going in. The Crown dropped charges of impaired driving and possession of an illegal drug.

How does someone walk away from cocaine possession and impaired driving? He either had the drugs or he didn't. He was either drunk or he wasn't. Court was told he had a blood alcohol limit over 0.08. Presumably the police would have had the results of any white powder found.

So why did he receive such a favourable plea bargain? "Legal reasons," said the crown attorney, with no reasonable chance of conviction.

Given that Mr. Jaffer, as an MP, was promoting tougher prison sentences for drug dealers, the irony of the charges certainly caught people's attention. Some wags suggested he might want to volunteer to go to prison as an example to others.

The court result is good for Rahim Jaffer but bad for public confidence. Authorities must give a more complete explanation of what transpired. "Legal reasons" is insufficient. This lack of detail leads people to assume someone got favoured treatment. Most cannot see how drunk driving and drug possession charges simply vanish. It makes it appear there are indeed two sets of justice, one for the powerful and one for everyone else.

Without full disclosure, the administration of justice is brought into disrepute – and that smells.

Byron Montgomery, President, Mad River Institute Political Studies, Creemore

EDITOR'S NOTE:

It has since come to light that Mr. Jaffer was able to make his plea arrangement on the far less serious charge because the Crown believed the police had violated his rights.  Allegedly, they failed to permit him to take either of two telephone calls from his Calgary lawyers and they strip-searched him without sufficient cause.  OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino defended his officers and apparently asked for the case to go to trial, to let a judge and jury decide.  The Crown declined.

If this was the proper adjudication of this case, it is for lawyers, and law students, to debate.  However, the fact that it took the CBC to piece together what happened that night is wrong.  There is no reason the conclusion could not have been explained to the public.