RUNAWAY JUDGES

07/25/06

Runaway Judges By Lee Hanlon

Criminology Column, The Cascade News

National Magazine "CrimeWatch Canada" In Canada judges are not elected. They are appointed. Judges presiding in Provincial Courts are appointed by the provincial government.

Judges presiding in Provincial Supreme, Federal courts and Supreme Court of Canada, are appointed by the federal government.

In Canada judges are independent of government bodies. Judges follow a doctrine referred to as Judicial Independence. According to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Judicial Independence is the doctrine that decisions of the judiciary should be impartial and not subject to influence from the other branches of government or from private or political interests.

In most cases, Judicial Independence is secured by giving judges long, and sometimes lifetime, tenure and making them not easily removable.

Canada has a level of Judicial Independence entrenched in its Constitution, awarding superior court justices various guarantees to independence under sections 96 to 100 of the Constitution Act, 1867. These include rights to tenure (although the Constitution has since been amended to introduce mandatory retirement at age 75) and the

right to a salary determined by the Parliament of Canada (as opposed

to the executive). In 1982 a measure of judicial independence was extended to inferior courts specializing in criminal law (but not civil law) by section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, although in the 1985 case Valente v. The Queen it was found these rights are limited.

They do, however, involve tenure, financial security and some administrative

control. The year 1997 saw a major shift towards judicial independence, as the Supreme Court of Canada in the Provincial Judges Reference found an unwritten constitutional norm guaranteeing judicial independence to all judges, including civil law inferior court judges. The unwritten norm is said to be implied by the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867. Consequently, judicial compensation committees as opposed to the executive or even Parliament now recommend judicial salaries in Canada. It is for this very reason of the unwritten guarantee of Judicial Independence that judges can make whatever ruling they choose, no matter how unjust, and still be untouchable. For example in R. v. Bhalru and R. v. Khosa (2002), Bahadur Singh Bhalru and Sukhvir Singh Khosa were involved in street racing. The result was the death of a pedestrian, Irene Thorpe. Both accused were found guilty, but were only given a two year (less a day) conditional sentence and were allowed to serve their time at home.

Meanwhile, the Criminal Code of Canada (ccc) section (s.) 220(b) states that causing death by criminal negligence carries a life sentence. The judge presiding over that matter is still on the bench. Another example of runaway judges can be found in the matter of R. v. Senner (2005) where Teresa Senner killed her lover, Norman Wicks for dating other women and not leaving his wife. The original charge was second degree murder but was later reduced to manslaughter (yes, there are runaway prosecutors too!). The judge presiding over the Senner matter sentenced her to a conditional sentence of two years less a day in which Senner would be allowed to serve her time at home (sound familiar?). The facts of this case warranted first degree murder as Senner lured Wicks back to his home and stabbed him to death. Under the manslaughter charge (ccc s. 236(b)) the maximum sentence is life, the judge presiding could have easily given Senner ten years. He didn't. This judge too is still on the bench. And more recently, according to the June 18, 2006 edition of the Province, Kevin Morgan, a very well known criminal to the Vancouver Police has 190 criminal convictions. Yet he too is out and about. Examples of Morgan's convictions are violent offences such as assault with a weapon, robbery, and break and enter. Of course there are too many to name, but you get my drift. A runaway judge decided not to protect society thus Morgan is free to rack up his already lengthened criminal record. And just where are the judges that convicted Morgan? I would have to say, still on the bench. Flash back to 2000. R. v. Colegrove and R. v. Meredith (2000). Sherrie Colegrove was charged and convicted of trafficking in cocaine, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and breach of recognizance. Her sentence for trafficking? A one day jail term and 18 months probation with the standard conditions. She was given an absolute discharge for breach. Her sentence for possession for the purpose of trafficking - concurrent 30 day jail term and 18 month probation.

Granted, Colegrove had been in custody for one month prior to her sentence hearing, so the judge gave her a credit of one-month time served. Colegrove has a criminal record dating back to 1991 and is a career drug dealer. Leroy Earl Meredith was charged and convicted with trafficking in cocaine and drug possession. His sentence? Concurrent six weeks on each trafficking charge and an 18 month probation with standard conditions. Meredith has a criminal record dating back to 1974. The judge on this matter was the same Judge that convicted Colegrove. Both Colegrove and Meredith should have been sentenced to a life term in accordance with the Controlled Drug and Substance Act (CDSA): Every person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) (a) subject to subsection (4), where the subject-matter of the offence is a substance included in Schedule I or II, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life. CDSA s. 5(3)(a). If justice were to prevail, drug dealer/traffickers Colegrove and Meredith should have been sentenced to imprisonment for life.

The message this judge gave states that it's okay to destroy society

with the trafficking of cocaine. These are not isolated incidents. There are numerous other cases with unjust rulings. Where justice is delayed.....justice is denied.

#CourtsandJudges