The Legislature Raids

.
But here's a sobering thought, taken from today's Vancouver Province newspaper, COURT CHAOS SHOULDN'T DENY VICTIMS JUSTICE by Joey Thompson. Although it's about another, different trial altogether, the law applies equally in all cases and, in this example, starkly reveals some things we maybe ought to be thinking about, namely, What about us?:


Wednesday, October 24, 2007

He won't ever have to face trial on the grim allegations that he repeatedly assaulted and threatened his girlfriend.

But while domestic-violence suspect Davood Zarinchang is off the hook, the public is not -- the judge who nixed the string of assault and uttering-threats charges against Zarinchang also decided taxpayers should foot his legal-defence bill.

How can this happen in a free and democratic society that reveres the rule of law, that promises fairness and justice for all -- for the broken victims of crime as well for their assailants?

It occurs because our laws are fashioned on the premise that an illegal act, be it a brutal beating or a bank heist, is a crime against the state and Her Majesty the Queen. The real victim is virtually non-existent throughout the process. S/he is without a voice, entitled neither to restitution or representation -- the Crown acts for the state.

So when the system screws up and those charged are wrongly denied their liberty, as with Zarinchang, and the court steps in to remedy the error, as is its duty under the Charter of Rights, more often than not the accused are released, the Crown gets a talking-to and the victims get diddly-squat -- they don't get a say, they don't get closure, justice is out of their reach.

{Snip} ...

[The judge said:]
"I recognize the resources of the state are not limitless. [But] those responsible for administering the resources available to the criminal-justice system must use ingenuity and creativity to ensure the demands of the system are met."

He called the breach of Zarinchang's rights "serious and flagrant. They made his detention and his fundamental right to liberty insignificant by continually reprioritizing him and not providing the necessary facilities for him to be able to have a show-cause hearing," the judge concluded.

"Planning and foresight would have taken care of this problem."

No question, such sloppiness by a government agency is unacceptable and demands swift attention.

But what about the woman who had enough faith in the system to try to bring to justice a man suspected of being violent and a risk to others? She had to remain silent while her concerns were dismissed.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Something to think about, isn't it. We, the public, must also remain silent, absorbing as best we can what people can tell us about the B.C. Rail case. Hoping Robin, Bill, Gary E, Meaghan, and others can get to Courtroom 54 on Friday 26 October and then report their impressions here, for us to study. If others can possibly attend, please do. And let us know, eh? - BC Mary.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""