|
BLACK-SHEEP COMMENTARIES JUDGMENT BELONGS TO WATCHFUL CITIZENRY DURING my 26 years on the bench I began to feel more and more like the summer mill worker I once was, toiling on a green chain as it rolled out an endless stream of lumber. I certainly didn’t feel like a wise man dispensing Solomon’s justice. As each case ended it was followed by another slice of crime, sent down the administrative green chain for me to sort, grade and put on the guilty or not guilty piles. With most jobs there is waiting, repetition and boredom and so it is with judging. In a criminal trial it is crown and defense counsel who conduct the case, and if they do it in an activist fashion, as is expected of them, it leaves to the judge the opportunity to remain wide awake, listening impassively and attentively. But that is easier said than done, because a three-minute fight in a bar might take three days of diddling and winnowing in court. By the afternoon of the second day even the most attentive judge feels the presence of Morpheus. In my time a never-ending line of persons paraded before me. I often wondered what they thought of my judging. On rare occasions public opinion was swift and intense. One case is etched in my memory: Regina v. Alvey, Jennings, Irlam and Reynolds – otherwise known as Greenpeace v. USS Independence. On Friday afternoon, Dec. 28, 1989, I walked into court expecting to do a broken-window mischief charge, but – oh my – the gallery was crowded, all seats taken and others standing. Some older ladies sitting on the floor, and, ominously, several members of the press squeezing for position in the mob, pencils poised. This was a court day between Christmas and New Years Day when few cases go ahead. Muttering to myself – “Why me?” – I slumped into my chair and soon learned that I would be kept wide-awake all afternoon. It turned out that in the summer before, a nuclear powered 83,000-ton carrier, the USS Independence, had crept into anchorage in the roadstead in English Bay. There to greet it was Greenpeace, its little vessels swarming about under the watch of police and media. Protesters attempted to paint signs on the carrier at water level and to climb up its yet unleashed massive anchor chain and to board the carrier by its stern ladder. At the end of three hours of testimony and argument I gave an extemporaneous decision convicting the defendant who had climbed the anchor chain because I was satisfied that he had endangered the safe operation of the carrier. I acquitted the other protesters. In the course of my decision I made editorial comments concerning peaceful protest against the threat of nuclear weapons. In part: “It’s probably true that in Canada we don’t look upon protestors as we ought to, because this country has become, in the democratic world, the most docile of all. We tend not to react to government action and policy decisions as vocally and actively as we might. It’s become the Canadian personality, I suppose, to react too passively.” Response was swift and divided – there was no neutral ground. A sampling follows. Thumbs up: An editorial in The Vancouver Sun entitled – “Judgment call worth a cheer.” A lady closed her letter saying, “Future generations will appreciate the stand you have taken.” Another left a phone message – “You are a ray of light in the darkness that seems to be around us.” Still another message – “ …thank God for Greenpeace and people like Judge Craig who obviously can see the light. We are very lucky to have people who have the guts to say what is happening.’ Thumbs down: One correspondent ended his letter saying – “This judgement is irresponsible, threatens the cornerstone of our justice system and is serious enough to warrant the removal of Judge Wally Craig from the bench.” Another reached back to 1838, quoting, not quite accurately, yet very effectively from Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist – “…In this case you have confirmed to many people … that ‘the law is an ass.’ A very well thought out objection to my judicial reasoning came from a lady in Wyoming who said – “This is reminiscent of a judge who would acquit a rapist because his victim wore a short skirt, ‘inviting’ the crime.” Finally, a furious gentleman cuffed me not once, not twice, but three times – “You are an embarrassment to this country, your colleagues and the justice(?)(sic) system in general. You should be ashamed of yourself. Its amazing people like you are put in places of supposed authority. Smarten-up or get the type of job more suited to your capabilities – the carnival.” It was definitely a hung jury! Yet in all of this there is a truth: that once rendered, a judgment belongs to the litigants, the legal system, and above all to the public; and that it is every citizen’s right to be a critic. Wallace G Craig – wallace-gilby-craig@realjustice.ca – NS News – August 02, 2006 |
|
|
