Fundamental Principles of the Justice

Rule of Law:

The book Law in Action, Understanding Canadian Law explains the rule of law by dividing it into three parts: “Firstly, the Rule of Law means that individuals must recognize and accept that law is necessary to regulate society. Secondly, it means that the law applies equally to everyone, including people in power, such as heads of state, police officers, judges and politicians. Finally, the Rule of Law means that no one in our society has the authority to exercise unrestricted power to take away our rights except in accordance with the law" p.13 (Prentice-Hall, 2003)

Case example:

Please read this excerpt from an article entitled The Rule of Law: What is it? Why should we care?

by Barbara Billingsley online magazine LawNow

http://www.lawnow.org/the-rule-of-law-what-is-it-why-should-we-care/#sthash.qlxUVZ2F.dpuf

In Roncarelli v. Duplessis, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the actions of Premier Duplessis of Quebec with respect to Roncarelli, a Quebec restaurateur. Premier Duplessis had ordered the cancellation of Roncarelli's liquor licence, an act that obviously had serious implications for Roncarelli's livelihood. Premier Duplessis had ordered the liquor licence cancelled, not because of any problem with Roncarelli's restaurant or liquor service, but because Roncarelli was a Jehovah's Witness who had been posting bail for several other Jehovah's Witnesses who were arrested for violating municipal by-laws regarding literature distribution. In essence, Premier Duplessis was trying to indirectly discourage Roncarelli from posting bail for his friends. The Supreme Court of Canada found that Premier Duplessis' actions were unjustified and the Court ordered the Premier to pay damages (compensation) to Roncarelli. The Supreme Court held that Premier Duplessis' cancellation of Roncarelli's liquor licence violated the Rule of Law because this action constituted an abuse of the Premier's powerful position. The Court held that the Rule of Law prohibited Duplessis from relying on his high office or his personal assessment of public interest as a ground for cancelling Roncarelli's liquor licence. The liquor licence could only properly be revoked if the cancellation was authorized by a particular statute or law. The Quebec statute which dealt with liquor licensing gave the power to issue or cancel liquor licences exclusively to another Quebec official and not to the Premier.

Extend your learning opportunity: See more at: http://www.lawnow.org/the-rule-of-law-what-is-it-why-should-we-care/#sthash.qlxUVZ2F.dpuf

Impartiality:

A decision in a court of law should be based on objective criteria. Bias or prejudice should not play a role in a trial. Judges must demonstrate respect for all of the people involved in a case and must demonstrate respect for the law in their personal lives.

Case example: Paul Bernardo was charged with two counts of first degree murder. These crimes took place in St. Catharines. The case was very high profile, the victims were young girls and the community was shaken by the events. Bernardo was eligible to have a trial by jury but finding an unbiased jury would have been difficult in that community. Justice Lesage therefore allowed a ‘change of venue' which means that the trial took place in a different location. This was done to ensure that the jurors were not biased before they heard the evidence. In addition, Justice Lesage put in place a publication ban to limit the external influences on the trial. The judge did this to ensure the jury could be impartial and Bernardo could have a fair trial.

Equality:

Equality is the principle that states that government and individuals are subject to the same laws and that all are entitled to equal protection of the law.

Case example:

Mr. Vriend was a teacher at a college in Alberta in 1988. He was fired by the college because he was homosexual. He tried to file a Human Rights complaint but at the time the Alberta human rights legislation did not include sexual orientation as grounds for discrimination. An Alberta judge decided that it was necessary for the provincial legislation to include this protection and that the omission violated section 15 (equality before and under the law and equal protection and benefit of the law). The government appealed and the case went to the Supreme Court. The high court decided that the provincial legislation did discriminate against homosexuals. The government was obligated to protect the rights of all citizens equally.

Innocent until Proven Guilty:

One of the most important principles of justice is that all people accused of breaking a law are considered innocent until they have been proven guilty in a court of law. This is sometime called the ‘presumption of innocence'.

Case Example: At the Vancouver Airport in 2007, RCMP Constable Kwesi Millington fired a taser at Robert Dziekanski. Mr Dziekanski later died. Four officers were involved in the incident. Millington was found guilty in February of 2015 for perjury and colluding with his colleagues. The Crown argued that the officer lied about the incident to justify the use of force. The Crown also argued that he conspired with fellow officers at an inquiry into the death. The officer had a fair trial, evidence was presented and he was eventually found guilty by a BC Supreme Court judge. Millington had remained on duty with the RCMP in a different capacity throughout the trial. Even in very high profile cases such as this one, it is necessary to ensure that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Fairness:

Fairness in law refers to the process or procedures within the judicial system. A person should know the evidence the crown intends to present in order to prepare a defence to the charges. An accused should be able to understand court proceedings in order go to trial. The idea of fairness also means that bias or prejudice should not play a role in the creation of laws, the arrest procedures or the court processes.

Case example:

Please read the article

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/police-vetting-of-jury-pool-gets-murder-conviction-tossed-1.1158196 posted on CBC.

“After a four-month trial in 2007, a jury in Barrie, Ont., convicted Clare Spiers of first-degree murder and two counts of kidnapping in the 2004 death of a woman, who was snatched outside a home along with her infant granddaughter. The baby was found unharmed, but she was found dead in a wooded area.”

Following the conviction, Spiers and his attorney became aware of certain actions by the Crown and the police during the jury selection process. The jury had been ‘vetted' by the police; to be vetted means to be carefully examined or investigated. Vetting is not permitted because it can lead to an unfair trial. The police reported any background information about the potential jurors including negative interactions with police, criminal backgrounds and driving records to the Crown. None of the information was given to the defence.

Though the jury may have been impartial, the appearance of collusion between the Crown and the police damages the reputation of the justice system. Spiers appealed his conviction on this basis and his conviction was overturned by the Ontario Court of Appeal. He was awarded a new trial. The court determined that to interfere with the jury process in this way amounted to a ‘miscarriage of justice.' “The Appeal Court also found the Crown's misuse of police databases violated provincial privacy legislation.” The new trial was to be held in late 2013 however Spiers pled guilty to second degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment without a chance for parole for 17 years.”