"The proper considerations are whether or not the candidate is a good lawyer in the sense that he knows the law, is of good character and is fair . . ." C'mon, Rafe, lots of times you're right on track, but in Ontario even a candidate for school principal is expected to use pronouns better than that.

[I]Judges goof. Judges sometimes do things they ought not to -- that's what appeal courts are all about. But when you think of the thousands and thousands of cases heard around this land every day, we should thank God we're so well served.[/I.

I absolutely agree with Rafe on that one.

However, Wilf Day makes a good point but may be being wrongfully criticizing Rafe by assuming (without any evidence) that he knows what a pronoun is.

He's no longer a judge, and is entitled to an opinion. One would presume that the attorney general's office would not have pursued charges AGAINST Pickton if they did not think the likelihood of a conviction existed.

This would seem to suggest that, yes, the A-G is "on the side of the prosecutor" as he should be.

It's not so much the process by which judges are picked, so much as it is the accoutability against which judges (and the judiciary) should be held. Quite simply, if a judge makes a ruling and sentences (say) a rapist to a jail sentence, and said rapist, when released commits a similar crime, then that judge was wrong, and there should be a penalty levied against him/her. No, no money. More like either disbarrment or a jail sentence. Likewise for putting an innocent in jail.........

I must admit Rafe, I was surprised when I realized which case of Wally threatening with his inappropriate comments this column was actually about. I guess we could take solace in the realization that ole Wally is an equal opportunity prejudicier (sp?-but I like the French flavor of the "i")

I don't feel so lonely having the exact same views. Vic Toews is a whole 'nother even more absurd example of a legal education gone to waste. Perhaps instead of revamping the system for appointing judges we should consider examining the state of legal education or lack of same.

Unfortunately there is little prospect for any progress that actually improves access to and the delivery of actual.....justice, because as Rafe cogently points out.

Because the public won't notice - hey after all Britney and WhatsHisName are splitting up! (Ken Fed, K-Fed, K-FedLine, K-Mart, Fed-Up, I give up, even though it IS important.)

In a totally incompetent puppet government Mr.Oppal stands out as the worst.

Of course, he won't resign, because our whole North American justice system is being slowly turned into the European Roman system, where the police, prosecutors and judges are making detailed statements to the media on cases, long before and during the trials, and the accused must prove his, or her, innocence.

The loss of habeas corpus in the USA is one of the best examples of how the righteous and the holy are showing us the way to go, with our own neocons lapping it up.

Ed Deak. Big Lake,

Great analysis, Rafe, and much needed. Thanks.

Would you please talk a bit about Oppal's casual-like-a-fox remarks tossed off as he walked toward a meeting ... those prejudicial remarks about the way some wiretap evidence was gathered for the Basi Virk Basi trial.

If the AG's remarks become cause for a mistrial ... what does that mean: that proceedings begin again? or that the trial is finished forever?

The answer to that question is important because, as you say, Oppal could hardly fail to know the impact of his comments on what is surely the most important trial ever launched in B.C.

I hate to say this, but it looks to me as if the Basi Virk Basi trial is being inched along to co-incide with the ghoulish distraction of the Pickton Trial.

In a case which puts the B.C. system of government on trial, it's been difficult to think that Wally Oppal is just a great guy who left the B.C. Court of Appeal so as to better serve the public interest.

No wonder the unfortunate aides who were caught in the headlights are gaining sympathy from those watching this unfold.

Quality article Rafe. Very nice.

Oppal must resign. I agree fully with Mr. Mair's analysis. The greatest traditions of parliamentary practice, practice which has kept us safe from tyrany for hundreds of years have been disregarded. He should go. He should hang his head in shame and slink away.

I doubt he will, though.

Mr. Oppal isn't the chief prosecutor, he is the boss of the prosecutors. His job is to keep them honest, keep them clear on what the place of the crown is in law. To protect all citizens from abuses. He won't resign because he and the Liberals believe that because they're in power, their abuses can now be imposed on the rest of us by making them law. They have even, I have read, broken laws then passed new laws to retroactively protect themselves from consequences.

If the premier can refuse to resign in the face of his own mug shot, can all but eliminate the Auditors General, can hire the accountants from Enron to run BC Hydro, can disregard local rights and impose contracts in favor of their 'contributors'.

If the premier can keep his seat in the face of all that, why not an AG who wrecks the most important corruption trial when it threatens to expose the truth about the current government? Or the biggest murder trial because it's about to expose the truth about police prejudice and incompetence?

After all, truth is what they tell us it is, isn't it? What else is power for?

Baily's thoughtful contribution offered this:

You've got that right, they are even involved in litigation with their own crown prosecutors over such retroactive (contract voiding) legislation that has been assailed by the ILO of the United Nations. (The case in question has already been to court, but since the govenment lost in court their only option was to retroactively change the law - abiding by the ruling being obviously not on the table.) That is unless it has been somehow settled behind the scenes where unfortunately most of the governance of British Columbia seems to occur.

Pretty soon any citizen foolish enough to inquire about the actions of his government may find themselves liable to charges of "espionage." Oh heck, now I'm giving 'em ideas, or maybe they're already workin' on it - retroactivelyl

oooops, just a sec, there's a sharp knock at my door....................

Great article Raif! This is showing nothing but contempt for the system he is a part of. He should resign. Alerting people to this situation is only covering for gordo and his minions. The deeper you go with the VBV cases, the closer you will get to gordo. Booze, drugs and women cannot hide this monster. To bad a once good, honest man like opal, is now a cheap shill of the gordogang. Very sad wally, very sad.

Rafe, your reference that I took to mean maintainng vigilance against becoming a police state, certainly wasn't over the top.

Note a headline in today's Sun: Police voice gets louder in Parliament

Subhead: Critics decry government's "pandering" to law enforcement agencies

Certainly is a heluva lot of that "pandering" happening out there, and demonstrably, no shortage of apologists when questionable activities happen within those agencies that, invariably, get to investigate themselves. One need only go to the "letters" pages.

Wally Oppal, when acting as a Judge, was quite well known for offering opinions publically and was often quoted in the media, unlike many of his judicial peers who tended to maintain a much lower profile. I don't recall much protest then...but perhaps he also brought a bit more transparency to old lady Justice.

Now, Oppal, as an elected official...and with the Attorney General's post, Oppal has apparently made some remarks re an upcoming trial. Now the question is...is Rafe's editorial meant to maintain some percieved overall integrity in both (i) the AG Ministry position in general and (ii)the person currently holding the AG job ? ...or is the bigger implication that Oppals' comments will adversely affect the Pickton trial per se ?

If the overall Justice system itself has maintained its integrity, and as Rafe points out " the Crown never wins or loses, but presents the Crown's case fairly "...no person, not even the AG ,or Premier,..or Prime Minister should ever realistically be capable of influencing a properly conducted trial even if Oppal or anyone else were to scream " He's Guilty "....OR "He's Innocent".

The integrity in public office argument is a much different issue than a fair trial argument..the individual's actions don't indict the entire system.

Hey Rafe...ya sound like one of the good ole boys yerself.
You've made some real stupid comments in the past but you've yet to pack it in.
I've been after you for months to retire but guess you can't find anything else to occupy your time.
It sounds like your pissing a lot'a people off with yer constant ramblings.
You were once on top. Let us remember you for that. Jack Webster was smart.
Do us all a favour......

The biggest problem facing the people of British Columbia is the way organized crime is taking over our democratic system!
Wally Oppal's comment was not dumb but I think a very calculated slip.
The Honourable Wally Oppal, QC, made it clear that he was on the side of the prosecutors -- that he was B.C.'s top prosecutor and he could say what he pleased. "Say what"
This is a big problem in the justice system of Canada and its Provinces today, when the AG's think that they are above the law and can say anything they want too including causing a mistrial.
Wally Oppal should resign in disgrace before he does any more damage to the people of British Columbia's fragile justice system
Re: 2003 Legislature Scandal
Fish Farms, Our dirty water, BC Ferries, BC Hydro, ALR, Childrens and Family, 2010 cost over runs coverups and on and on

I had a chuckle over Rafe's last statement about mainstream media. I tune into CKNW occasionally and whaT do I get? A discussion about whether or not Stronach is a "bitch", or some two bit advertisement disguised as information and selling everything from get younger to get richer schemes or a radio evangelist who's still fantasying about the love of jesus saving mankind. I really need to find out where Bruce Allen gets his LSD for his "reality check" and that Micheal Campbell doesn't seem to understand his own bulschit about "critical thinking". The icing on the cake was yesterday's two hour "storm watch" and I heard them tell us about the outrageous weather we were experiencing. You would have thought Hurricane Katrina was on it's way. I looked outside...it wasn't raining nor was the wind blowing. I went out and watched a Santa Claus parade with thousands of others and I wondered why I was packing an umberella on such a sunny day.

Oppal is flake, always has been a flake and always will be a flake.

Just like the constituents of BC, who keep hoping some Messiah will bring them righteousness.

Until YOU take to the streets and YOU demand accountability, you have nothing to bitch about.

I am not sure that Rafe is correct on the law. The AG does have the right to participate with, and direct the prosecution. Indeed, he is legally entitled to personally take over the prosecution.

But that being said, Rafe's correct in general, about Oppal shooting his mouth off and endagering cases.

Perhaps the Virk/Basi case is a better example. Oppal made comments about the credibility of certain evidence and witnesses, namely the wiretap evidence and any RCMP who would testify relating to it.

It is definately NOT OK for an Attorney General to taint or discredit potential crown witnesses or evidence.

The NDP's AG critic Leonard Krog picked up on that and issued a press release criticizing Oppal when it happened.

Oppal aslo suggested at the time that he was looking to the US to consider requiring the defence to disclose its witness lists to Crown before trial.

Since when has the defence had to prove its case?!! Oppal's comments undermine the presumption of innocence.

Oppal should resign for that.

cosmo
I think it comes down to the question of the role of the prosecutor as someone meant to pursue justice whether that involves the conviction of the accused or not.

For example, there is an ethical principal that lawyers attest when they are admitted to the Bar that "all" evidence must be disclosed if it is pertinent to the case - even if it undermines the case an attorney is making. This is more especially the case on the crown's side of the courtroom.

It is far better that a dozen guilty men walk free than that one innocent person be convicted. It is that presumption of innocence that has always distinguished English jurisprudence.

The Americans’ suspension of habeas corpus, the adoption of reverse onus in some cases and the political statements of our Attorneys General all put our system in jeopardy, in my view.

Gordon:

You want to take to the streets? Have I got a deal for you! A rally on the steps of the Legislature on Wednesday November 22nd, at 2:00 PM.

The Raging Grannies and their friends (that would be you) will be asking, in song, why the full House of M.L.A.s is gathering for only 1 day instead of a full Fall Session. They will describe in song, the B.C. issues in desperate need of open debate on the floor of the Legislature.

The lyrics (so far)[To the tune of "Billy Boy, Billy Boy"]:

Why don't you come down here in front,
Gordie boy, Gordie boy?
Where've you been the past six months,
Premier Gordie.
Did you have to run and hide?
Someone told us that you'd died,
And we really, really cried,
Premier Gordie.

Are you scared to face the poor,
Gordie boy, Gordie boy?
You've got lots to answer for,
Premier Gordie.
Don't forget that we're your boss
Though you couldn't give a toss.
There's no province without us,
Premier Gordie.

British Columbia up for sale,
Gordie Boy, Gordie Boy?
Hydro, Gas and BC Rail
Premier Gordie.
While for the poor and homeless folks
Working people and their hopes
Just strings of promises and lies.
From Premier Gordie.

BC Ferries on the rocks,
Gordie Boy, Gordie Boy.
Check the value of your stocks,
Premier Gordie.
Clearcut valleys, washed out streams,
Backroom deals fill all his dreams,
So the cheque is in the mail
For Premier Gordie.

Virk and Basi going to trial,
Gordie Boy, Gordie Boy?
Will they tell who pulled the strings,
Premier Gordie?
If they say that you're the Man
Showed them how to scheme and plan
You may find you're in the can.
Poor Premier Gordie.

Is this a purely anti-Campbell rally? No, it isn't. It should embarrass the silent, evasive NDP Opposition as well.

But it's hard to deny that his dazed drunken mug is the public face of BC, ever since his mugshot on Maui! People who are used to chauffeurs, and can afford cabs with their pocket lint have to be exceptionally lacking in judgement to drive drunk! Or was it just another distraction from the Raids on the Ledge, and as such just another part of the plan, man?

Good, well written piece by Rafe. He seems convincing. I have raised my eyebrows a few times when hearing Wally Oppal speak out. This present case was another. I'm not familiar with the law or the rules that govern the office of the Attorney General but reading his comments I wondered if he had prejudiced the case. It seems that Cosmo also knows from whence he speaketh and defends Oppal's utterings. Therefore, I hope we hear more on this.

Oppal also seems to want to shake up the system to expedite caseloads. That's probably good. Being frequently accessible to the media is OK too but if he's out of line he should resign.

Vic Toews is pandering and showing frustration. Rafe is quite right when he explains how having police sit on vetting panels for judges would be ridiculous.

We need Rumpole.

Realisticman
I've two lawyers in my immediate family.
Rafe is right and cosmo is mistaken. Although it would be perfectly proper for the AG to argue a case before the bar - and AGs in the past have done so - this has nothing to do with the ethical standards to which officers of the law are to hold themselves relative to any accused and his or her innocence. The prosecution presents the evidence, the jury (or judge as the case may be) judges guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - period. The judge interprets and applies the law and gives effect to the rules of evidence.

At its best, the system serves the interests of justice and reinforces the rule of law. At worst, it is a methodology plagued by usury and opportunism

Wally knows better. His actions were, as Rafe says, inexcusable.

All, in my opinion.

G West
Thank you for the comments. Rafe speaks clearly and objectively on matters of law and I suspected he is correct.

Therefore, can we anticipate the head of the Bar Association to advise the Premier that his Attorney General has breeched protocol and possibly done irreparable damage to a (gigantic) case, and that this calls for Oppal to step aside?

I'm only speculating, but since the case has not reached court I presume this does not mean we have a mistrial as long as the entire prosecution team - including the Attorney General are replaced. If that were to happen it would take years to find a new team and bring them up to speed. Amongst the confusion the defence lawyers might consider a habeas corpus petition! What a mess!

Does anyone know of any comments from the defence team?

Don't hold your breath. And there probably won't be a mistrial either, my view.

We won't hear much more about it unless the chief judge of the Supreme Court writes a letter to the editor. Or raps the AG's knuckles in some other public way; by the way, I don't expect Wally will resign either.

If you want to find the shortest distance between two points, put our AG within walking distance of a microphone. He has suffered from foot in mouth disease for a very long time - according to those I've spoken with.

Again, I make it clear these are opinions only. In this case, in all liklihood, Mr Oppal will live to sin another day.

On the other hand, if Leonard Krog, the NDP justice critic, could find a way to address the matter on Wednesday in Victoria at the Legislature, all bets might well be off.

I suspect Tyee readership, on its own, won't make that much of a splash. Not to derogate Rafe or his analysis by any means.

Usury? Do lawyers charge interest? Judges? I think you mean "nepotism", no?

Skookum1:
I meant in the sense that, if one needed the best defence money could buy, the only way it could be got, for an average guy, was by visiting the money-lender, or, more like, paying long-term interest to your barrister on the contract until it was paid. Hence the usury.

Lawyers do take cases on contingency now - they weren't allowed to previously, but this isn’t normally a factor in criminal cases.

They do charge interest on unpaid accounts.

The only recourse a dissatisfied client has, as a rule, is to request that the Law Society 'tax' their lawyers billing.

Which is why they are usually so astute about logging every letter, meeting and telephone call.

The opportunism comes about when a long up-and coming guy takes a high-profile case/client because of the publicity.

Sorry I wasn't clearer. Even Willie Picton, though he’s an example not many would push, if acquitted, will find himself financially ruined the day he walks from court.

Canada’s actually better than the States though in terms of paying compensation to the wrongfully convicted after a lengthy sojourn in the hoosegow.

I wish that had been the case back when I needed a laywer to fight Compo; back then (late '80s) you could only get contintency on Icky-bicky cases. I stuck through with the Workers Advisors provided by the Ministry of Labour, and needless to say I got screwed. I should have had at least long-term physio coverage but got nothing, other than insulting treatment from the Medical Review Panel. And when it finally came out, from a surgeon of my acquaintance, that my treatment by the medical system (my GP and his chosen Orthopaed, plus my original GP who wouldn't write me a letter and shortly afterwards became a high-profile spokesman for Compo...names need not be named here) constituted malpractice, it was too late to sue (I think); and that the way I was railroaded by my guy from Workers Advisors who "helped" me with the Appeals Division constituted abuse of process it was too late, and I was too poor and physically exhausted, to even think about legal action against the government, much less had the money on hand to plunk down a retainer. Apparently you need the Crown's permission to sue the Crown anyway.....

Not sour grapes anymore; I've outgrown that; but there's days when my back/hip is seized when I want to go after the bastards for lifetime physio coverage...(which I need weekly and can't afford, so go without....)

"contingency"...damn, I gotta get a new keyboard....

Trying to get back to the issues in the article this forum is supposed to be about...

What's your opinion, then (G West), as to the alternatives south of the border to our system? - ours being one where the judiciary, police, and prosecution all come under the same minister; the alternative being the election of judges, prosecutors, and senior law enforcement people, e.g. the County Sheriff.

First off, I sure as hell wouldn't go to voting judges in. But, you're right, too often the guys in the robes and the advocates of the crown are too damn cozy to keep up the pretense that justice is blind.

I think I'd make qualifying for the bench a much more serious and thoroughgoing process - not just a result of knowing the right political people and schmoozing with the litigation bar.

There should be specific training - rather than the learn once your on the bench system we have now. And a complete separation from the crown attorneys who make decisions about charging and the police, who get to know which judges to knock up in the middle of the night if you want a search warrant or a wiretap in a hurry.

Too much buddy buddy stuff - and just having three years at law school and a few years behind a desk for the 'right' firm (if you know what I mean) is not a qualification to sit in judgment over anyone. My view.

I think they have a special process in some European countries to educate and qualify their judiciary - I'd look there for ideas

BC Mary
Thanks for the invite!
Do you have a group going on the ferry from the mainland?

gordon asked BC Mary

Its probably a good idea that when traveling on the ferries , that several of the passengers be appointed ,who will periodically take turns, in going up to the wheel house, as to make sure that the ferry is still on course, just in case some one has decided to go for a jump.

gordon: it's going to be a surprise party, I think.

You're gonna be surprised who's there ... and who's not there.

Rally - Wed., 22 Nov., 2:00 PM, steps of the Legislature.

Rafe: Good column as usual. BC Mary was dead on with one of her earlier comments on Basi and Virk, although I don't think it's as innocent as delaying the case with the Pickton trial so it can fly under the media radar. Let's hope no-one makes a really stupid comment on that one.

BC Mary...it appears your suprise party was a real suprise and I wanted to be suprised by who was there !
Why the hell can't some opposition be mustered against the gordo crew. It's beyond apathy.
It sounds as though the NDP is happy with the way things are going or are they still laying low?
They did make a small noise at the legislature but it never really made the news ...

netscaper2 ... were you on the steps of the Legislature last Friday the 22nd??

I've heard nothing! Were the Raging Grannies there?

On the TV news there was a glimpse of somebody on the steps with a placard saying "Dirty Coal" so were the Grannies protesting multiple outrages or what??