Eight weeks and counting on Svend Robinson
Well, here we are two months later, still waiting to hear whether Svend Robinson will be prosecuted for stealing a ring on April 9. What do you suppose is so devilish hard about this case?
Or maybe the Criminal Code is now enforced only on people who can't call national press conferences and burst into tears.
Note that the real suspect at this point is the justice system, not Svend Robinson. Svend's just foolish and fallible like the rest of us. He had been shopping around Vancouver for a fancy jewel for his friend. He saw one he wanted. He stole it. He got caught. He confessed. He made excuses.
Such is life. People sometimes steal things and have to be prosecuted. That's why we have a Criminal Code. If you steal something worth more than $5,000 (which Robinson did) you're supposed to go to jail for up to ten years. It serves as a deterrent to people like Svend and you and me.
Except that in this case nothing's been done and nobody's been charged.
In fact, Svend's political sympathizers are so numerous and irrational I wonder if he'll face any legal consequences at all. In fact he's already talking about his imminent return to the "front lines."
Last week we sent out an email appeal for funds to pay for an ad in the National Post asking when Svend will be charged. There was a strong positive response. Lots of people are watching this.
However, I was struck by how many people have already acquitted him. "Give him a break, he made a mistake." "He was under stress." "Why run a newspaper ad--why not just crucify him?" "The damage has been repaired."
Do these people care nothing about personal responsibility and justice? Why are they prejudging Svend's case?
All we know is that Robinson stole a ring. We don't know anything else. We don't know whether or how much to blame him.
But we have a process for finding out. It's called a trial.
Since I wrote on this subject a month ago, I have been shocked at how little some people know about our justice system. But when I tried to explain it to them, I was surprised at how little I knew for sure myself. So I called a senior federal crown prosecutor of many years' experience.
As I thought, it doesn't matter whether the injured party "presses charges." A criminal offence is against the Queen (or if you prefer, the public), not the individual victim. Nor does it matter that Svend returned the ring.
As to whether Robinson really had any good excuses, that's for a judge to decide AFTER he has heard all the facts in a fair and open trial.
My prosecutor friend explained that the only factor a crown counsel should consider in laying a criminal charge is whether he can prove his case. The rest is left up to the judge.
What about the "public interest," I asked. Shouldn't a prosecutor weigh that as well?
No, said my friend. That's only for fluke cases where prosecution would be totally absurd. Almost always the public interest lies in proving whether a crime happened, which requires a trial.
Allowing the Crown to pick and choose based on the prosecutor's individual notion of the "public interest" gives far too much power to the government. It amounts to the government conducting the trial in secret. If you're a popular politician you get off.
That's how it starts, said my friend, but the special treatment will soon expand to benefit anyone with influence (judges, prominent businessmen, advocates of trendy causes). From there it's a short step to rich gangsters buying their way out of trials.
(The fact that the B.C. government handed this decision to Len Doust, an independent special prosecutor, is a red herring. Legal responsibility for prosecution remains with the government.)
So it will be interesting to see what charge Svend eventually faces--if indeed he ever faces anything.
- Link Byfield
Link Byfield is chairman of the Citizens Centre for Freedom and Democracy
Citizens Centre for Freedom and Democracy
Suite 203, 10441 - 178 Street
Edmonton, AB T5S 1R5
Phone: 780-481-7844
Toll Free: 1-866-666-6768
Fax: 780-481-9983
contact@citizenscentre.com
Well, here we are two months later, still waiting to hear whether Svend Robinson will be prosecuted for stealing a ring on April 9. What do you suppose is so devilish hard about this case?
Or maybe the Criminal Code is now enforced only on people who can't call national press conferences and burst into tears.
Note that the real suspect at this point is the justice system, not Svend Robinson. Svend's just foolish and fallible like the rest of us. He had been shopping around Vancouver for a fancy jewel for his friend. He saw one he wanted. He stole it. He got caught. He confessed. He made excuses.
Such is life. People sometimes steal things and have to be prosecuted. That's why we have a Criminal Code. If you steal something worth more than $5,000 (which Robinson did) you're supposed to go to jail for up to ten years. It serves as a deterrent to people like Svend and you and me.
Except that in this case nothing's been done and nobody's been charged.
In fact, Svend's political sympathizers are so numerous and irrational I wonder if he'll face any legal consequences at all. In fact he's already talking about his imminent return to the "front lines."
Last week we sent out an email appeal for funds to pay for an ad in the National Post asking when Svend will be charged. There was a strong positive response. Lots of people are watching this.
However, I was struck by how many people have already acquitted him. "Give him a break, he made a mistake." "He was under stress." "Why run a newspaper ad--why not just crucify him?" "The damage has been repaired."
Do these people care nothing about personal responsibility and justice? Why are they prejudging Svend's case?
All we know is that Robinson stole a ring. We don't know anything else. We don't know whether or how much to blame him.
But we have a process for finding out. It's called a trial.
Since I wrote on this subject a month ago, I have been shocked at how little some people know about our justice system. But when I tried to explain it to them, I was surprised at how little I knew for sure myself. So I called a senior federal crown prosecutor of many years' experience.
As I thought, it doesn't matter whether the injured party "presses charges." A criminal offence is against the Queen (or if you prefer, the public), not the individual victim. Nor does it matter that Svend returned the ring.
As to whether Robinson really had any good excuses, that's for a judge to decide AFTER he has heard all the facts in a fair and open trial.
My prosecutor friend explained that the only factor a crown counsel should consider in laying a criminal charge is whether he can prove his case. The rest is left up to the judge.
What about the "public interest," I asked. Shouldn't a prosecutor weigh that as well?
No, said my friend. That's only for fluke cases where prosecution would be totally absurd. Almost always the public interest lies in proving whether a crime happened, which requires a trial.
Allowing the Crown to pick and choose based on the prosecutor's individual notion of the "public interest" gives far too much power to the government. It amounts to the government conducting the trial in secret. If you're a popular politician you get off.
That's how it starts, said my friend, but the special treatment will soon expand to benefit anyone with influence (judges, prominent businessmen, advocates of trendy causes). From there it's a short step to rich gangsters buying their way out of trials.
(The fact that the B.C. government handed this decision to Len Doust, an independent special prosecutor, is a red herring. Legal responsibility for prosecution remains with the government.)
So it will be interesting to see what charge Svend eventually faces--if indeed he ever faces anything.
- Link Byfield
Link Byfield is chairman of the Citizens Centre for Freedom and Democracy
Citizens Centre for Freedom and Democracy
Suite 203, 10441 - 178 Street
Edmonton, AB T5S 1R5
Phone: 780-481-7844
Toll Free: 1-866-666-6768
Fax: 780-481-9983
contact@citizenscentre.com
Comment