Tough on Crime? It all depends...

[Spazito]

Jaffer pleads guilty to careless driving

Former Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer pleaded guilty Tuesday in an Ontario courtroom to careless driving and must pay a $500 fine.

Jaffer had been charged with impaired driving and possession of cocaine but those charges were dropped. Jaffer will also donate $500 to charity.

snip

I'm sure you can recognize a break when you see one," Ontario Court Justice Doug Maund told Jaffer.

more

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/03/09/jaffer-case.html#ixzz0hhL5bEUx

I have no doubt the harper acolytes will be outraged at this given their insistence on being 'tough on crime' :sarcasm:

[daleo]

1. This isn't going down well with the "little people"

And I am one of them. There are nearly 1000 responses to this story on the CBC, almost all of them negative. Same for the Globe and Mail.

I know people who can't go to the U.S. over being convicted for a few marijuana seeds in the 1970's. That won't be a problem for Jaffer, though. I am sure lots of Conservative supporters have been caught up similar cases. This one really stinks, and in a way that average people can related to. Even more so than the Mulroney case.

[Spazito]

2. I agree, I certainly am outraged...

This is bullshit, imo. Anyone else, you know one of the 33 million Canadians without political connections, would never get "a break" like this, it stinks to hell.

I also agree this outrage is an easy one for most Canadians to 'get' whereas the Mulroney 'slide' is very convoluted in comparison.

I saw your post on the other thread re:

"Rahim Jaffer Judge Doug Maund, a federal Tory, was appointed in 2000 by Jim Flaherty, then Ontario's attorney general."

and, after reading that, the Judge's comment re 'getting a break' takes on a whole new meaning, imo, and my outrage has increased exponentially. Appointed by Flaherty, the CURRENT Minister of Finance, gosh, no appearance of conflict of interest there :sarcasm:

[daleo]

3. At a minimum, the judge should have recused himself

There is far too much appearance of conflict of interest. Why didn't the judge recuse himself?

Here's my prediction: Conservatives will spin this into being McGuinty's fault.

[Spazito]

4. Why didn't the judge recuse himself - Exactly my question as well...

I have no doubt the Cons will try and divert the fallout away from them but I don't think it's going to work this time, Jaffer is one of their own not just a 'good friend' of the party, etc, that they can as easily brush off, imo.

Edited to add: I am curious about the Crown lawyer as well:

The constable conducted a breathalyzer after smelling alcohol on Jaffer's breath and found him over the legal blood-alcohol limit of 80 milligrams of alcohol to 100 millilitres of blood.

snip

Crown lawyer Marie Balogh said in court the other charges were dropped after a careful review of the case showed there were significant legal issues and no reasonable chance of conviction. She refused to elaborate outside of court.



Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/03/09/jaffer-case.html#ixzz0hj9P4lqg

[daleo]

5. I tried googling her name out of curiosity

But pretty well all the hits are about this case.

Someone on the G&M reply board said that the drug charge would have been a federal prosecution, so if that is true, it means a federal prosecutor dropped the charges. Supposedly, these federal drug charges are "subbed out" to private lawyers in these cases, and those firms don't like to make the federal government unhappy.

Here's the text of that claim. I don't know if this is how the law works for sure, though:
=============================================================================================================
This case would have involved two Crowns, not one. The provincial Crown Attorney Office would have been handling the speeding charge, as well as the drunk driving charge and the careless driving charge. These are all areas of exclusive prosecutorial jurisdiction of the Provincial Crown Attorney office.

The drug charge would have been prosecuted by the Federal Crown Attorney office, and in this case, most likely by a lawyer in private practice retained by the Federal Attorney General's Office to prosecute the case i.e. a Crown Agent. Acting as a Crown agent for drug prosecution work under the Narcotic Control Act and the Food and Drug Act, is very lucrative work for lawyers in private practice. It is also work that you only get if you have the right political connections i.e. if a Liberal Gov't is in power all the agent work goes to law firms with liberal connections, and if a Conservative Gov't is in power all the agent work goes to law firms with Conservative connections. If you P.O someone in the Attorney General's office they can drop your agency contract like a hot potato. I'm not saying that there was a deliberate decision higher up to not prosecute this case, but there would be no incentive for a Federal Crown agent to prosecute it knowing that it might prejudice agency work. The Crown agent was probably looking for any reason to not prosecute.

You be the judge of that one.
=============================================================================================================
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/tories-bristle-when-asked-to-explain-rahim-jaffers-slap-on-the-wrist/article1495270/

[Spazito]

6. Thanks for this, it was helpful to use in doing further research...

It seems the post you provided is correct regarding drug charges being under Federal jurisdiction, through a government agency called the Public Prosecution Service of Canada and it does seem it 'contracts' out work if reading this correctly:

"The PPSC is a national organization that employs staff counsel and retains agents to deliver prosecution and criminal law advisory services at the federal level across Canada."

http://www.infosource.gc.ca/inst/ppd/fed04-eng.asp

After reading this I am inclined to find the poster's info quite credible and very interesting.

[daleo]

7. Nice verification

That's very interesting. I think more will come out over the next few days. It will be interesting.

[Spazito]

9. Hmmm, now I am not too sure the jurisdiction in this case was federal re drugs...

which makes me go from believing the provided post is credible to one of being quite skeptical. I found Marie Balogh listed under a document from the Ontario Ministry of Finance and she is under the Office of the Attorney General with the title of Assistant Crown Attorney so it seems this was completely handled by the Office of the Attorney General of Ontario.

http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/publications/salarydisclosure/2006/ministries06.html

As aside, I was taken aback, at first, when I realized it was a report on each employee's salary and benefits but it did help me to 'find' Ms. Balogh, lol.

[daleo]

10. According to (former defense lawyer) Joe Comartin, this is a federal matter

"Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said this was a provincial matter and there was no political interference. He called Ms. Neville’s questions irresponsible and demanded she apologize and withdraw her remarks, receiving a standing ovation from his caucus colleagues.

But Mr. Comartin points out that the drug charge is a federal matter and that Mr. Nicholson was “ducking” the issue of why it was dropped."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/mp-wants-answers-on-rahim-jaffers-plea-bargain/article1495925/?cid=art-rail-bureaublog

[Spazito]

11. Very interesting! This brings us back to the Public Prosecution...

Service of Canada, the federal agency responsible for drug crimes, etc. Hmmmm, I am starting this is what might have happened:

An Attorney from the PPSC, who is not named anywhere in the article, agreed to drop the drug charges (why? is certainly left outstanding) so it was not even included in the plea agreement so there was no need for a federal Attorney to appear in court whereas the Provincial Attorney General's Office of Ontario, represented by Ms. Balogh, agreed to get rid of the DUI charges and give the former MP a pathetic slap on the hand for "careless driving" (beyond ridiculous) instead.

It sure seems this is NOT going away and has some legs which is good news. Thanks for the link, it was very informative.

I would really like to know who, in the PPSC, made the decision to drop the drug charges and why!

[daleo]

12. Yes, the public deserves a full accounting

"The discretion of the crown" just wont' do.

I bet Conservative MPs have been flooded with calls and emails on this, more so than on the anthem lyrics issue.

[Spazito]

13. If the responses on the CBC, Globe and Mail sites are any indication...

there is rare agreement, with very few exception, between the right and the left on this issue which doesn't bode well for the Cons being able to easily bury this.

[daleo]

14. Rookie police officer is getting blamed now (scape goat?)

The Star, citing police sources, reported Wednesday that the more serious charges were dropped because a rookie OPP officer failed to follow proper procedures during a strip search of Jaffer, 38.

Prosecutors overruled the police in deciding the evidence would be open to challenge, and possible exclusion at trial, under the Charter of Rights.

Tainted evidence – or evidence obtained in violation of an individual’s rights – may sometimes be excluded as a remedy for the rights breach. Or, as the Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled, a rights violation may be addressed at the sentencing stage.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/777889--former-harper-aide-says-jaffer-should-apologize?bn=1

[Spazito]

15. Oh my....

It seems damage control has gone from medium to high on this. I don't think blaming this on a rookie cop is going to work now even if it is true, it may well backfire badly. For anyone to come out with this reason only after the outrage volume is too high to ignore makes this look like scapegoating for sure.

Thanks for this, it is an interesting read and quite scathing in tone toward the Cons.

[HeresyLives]

16. OPP says they stand behind it.

http://www.inews880.com/Channels/Reg/LocalNews/story.aspx?ID=1205249

[Spazito]

17. I suspected there would be a response by the OPP...

I am pleasantly surprised they responded so quickly! They are not going to be the scapegoats for the Cons on this one and good for them.

Thanks for the info, it is appreciated.

[daleo]

18. Interesting

So they won't go along with the "bad arrest" angle. I don't think this is going away.

[Spazito]

19. Here is the explanation as to why the prosecution was handled completely by...

the Ontario Attorney General's Office:

"All drug charges are normally tried by federal prosecutors. But when a person faces multiple charges, under a longstanding protocol between federal and provincial attorneys general, the attorney general with responsibility for the major charge assumes responsibility for prosecuting all charges.

Prosecution service spokesman Dan Brien said the amount of cocaine allegedly in Jaffer's possession was small so the drug charge was less serious than the impaired driving charge, which was the responsibility of the provincial prosecutor."

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/even-tories-want-jaffer-guergis-to-clear-the-air-on-bad-behaviour-87286787.html

This was interesting:

"The Public Prosecution Service of Canada, an independent body set up by the Harper government to ensure no political interference in criminal trials, confirmed Nicholson's account."

Pardon my bias but this tidbit makes me even more suspicious of the whole thing. The Cons don't set up agencies to serve the public, they do it to serve themselves and it seems, imo, this new agency is already 'paying off' for them.

[daleo]

22. I suspect lying with the truth

Let's get the story from the Ontario Attorney General's office now. Eventually we might get to the truth:

- OPP says it's not their fault, it was a righteous bust.
- Feds claim they had no involvement, due to a "longstanding protocol". The wording is slippery. I don't know if it amounts to an actual denial of involvement.
- That leaves the province. Why would they go easy on a Conservative poster boy? It doesn't make sense, and when it doesn't make sense, somebody is lying.

[Spazito]

25. Agree, there is one hell of a lot of scrambling going on...

to try and deflect this which only makes it worse, increasing, not reducing, the outrage.

[daleo]

26. They should re-instate the charges

And have the matter go to trial. If it was a bad bust, that will come out in public. If not, then that would come out too. We need to know the facts, and only a public trial will do that.

This is necessary for people to have faith in the legal system, even if it costs the state some money. McGuinty ought to recognize this, otherwise the Harperites will push the blame onto him.

[Spazito]

27. I think what is needed is a FULL investigation into what actually occurred first..

and, if there was, in any way, an unfair break given to Jaffer, then the charges should most assuredly be re-instated. I noticed the "sources" were saying the officer 'at fault' was a newbie whereas it turns out he was an experienced officer with 10 years under his belt. Every time the "sources" ie Con flacks open their mouths to 'clarify' they just put their feet further back into their own throats.

[daleo]

28. Another interesting item from a Globe poster

"Crown Attorney Marie Balogh remains mute about the reasons for Jaffer's escape from prosecution on the Criminal Code charges.

Here is some interesting reading about Balogh's boss, Crown Attorney Lowell Hunking:

Lowell Hunking is Crown Attorney for the County of Bruce in Ontario. Prior to joining the Crown's office, he practiced criminal and matrimonial law in private practice. Lowell is the former pastor of Sawgrass Community Church in Ft. Lauderdale Fl. and a former police officer. He continues to preach as pulpit supply. He is married to Margy and they have two adult daughters. Lowell writes a regular column for the Christian Legal Journal entitled "Law and Grace" and is host of a weekly radio show of the same name, where lawyers are interviewed regarding their faith, their work and the issues that God has them involved in on behalf or the faith."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/explain-rahim-jaffer-sentence-ministers-told/article1497324/

=========================================================================================================
It doesn't necessarily mean he is a Conservative supporter, but it might well result in conscious or unconscious bias towards the Conservatives. More reason for a full investigation, or a re-instatement of charges.

[HeresyLives]

29. Well well well, that IS interesting.

This is just getting better and better.

[Spazito]

30. Very interesting!

I agree it doesn't necessarily mean he is a Conservative supporter but it damn sure raises my suspicions that he is given fundies support the harper cabal 'big time'. We do know that Ms. Balogh would have taken 'direction' on this high-profile, high interest case from her boss before acting. Gosh, we need to hear from her boss as to what 'direction' he gave her and precisely why he gave the direction he did.

[HeresyLives]

31. Well everybody looks after their own

[CHIMO]

8. Back

To the good old Mulroney days.

The more the things change, the more they are the same.

[Toilet]

20. This is a provincial matter. Not a federal matter.

You're grasping at straws. The issue is dead.

[Spazito]

21. ROFL!

Hoping this will go away, eh?

[HeresyLives]

23. Cocaine is a federal matter.

And it's not remotely dead.

Seen the poll results today about the outrage?

[daleo]

24. This issue won't die

Until people get a satisfactory accounting from the players involved. Conservative supporters themselves are very unhappy. Lot's of people in this country have been denied entry to the States over minor drug possession charges, or had license suspensions, fines, and jail terms due to impaired driving.

People need a full accounting of why Jaffer got such an easy deal. If the bust was bad, why did the reckless driving charge go ahead?