Vancouver Courier
for July 12, 1998

It's hard to argue with the proposition that Crown Counsel, a.k.a. prosecutors, should look at proposed charges to ensure that citizens are not put to a lot of trouble, embarrassment to say nothing of money if the case is unprovable. If we didn't have such a process it would be left to the police who, for all their immense value to our community, are not likely to look critically at their own decisions. After all, who does?

OK. We've settled that, right?

Not quite so fast.

Crown Counsel are also required to look at matters involving public figures and decide not just if there's a reasonable prospect of success, but whether it would be in the "public" interest to lay charges. (I need hardly say that the very last group consulted re the "public interest" is the "public.")

There are a couple of B.C. matters of recent memory where it was decided "in the public interest" not to lay charges. For example, Moe Sihota's actions in Bud Smith tapes affair in 1990. The deputy-attorney general of the day referred the matter to the deputy attorney-general of Alberta for an independent opinion. He said that the case should proceed on the merits but that he had no comment on the "public interest" aspect. The Deputy Attorney General of B.C., Ted Hughes, QC, decided that laying charges would not be in the public interest though the public were not told with any specificity why that was so.

More recently, Industry Minister Dan Miller admitted ordering a government lawyer to phone a judge concerning a case Miller's government had going with a group of unhappy creditors of Skeena Cellulose. Crown Counsel decided that, despite public protests about the government's actions by the judge himself, it would not be "in the public interest" to investigate the matter let alone lay charges preferring to protect Mr Miller from further scrutiny.

Don't think I'm suggesting anything now but it is interesting to note that when long time MLA and highly touted candidate for Speaker, Jack Weisgerber, was nailed driving a vehicle from which a passenger shot at a dummy deer it was distinctly in the public interest that he be charged.

Of more importance, though, is the question of crimes involving public figures both inside and outside the public sector.

Remember Glen Kealey?

He was the chap who said that the Mulroney Government was "on the take", a phrase which became the title of a best seller by Stevie Cameron - a book which proved Kealey right on and then some.

Unlike shoplifters and speeders, the influential can afford mighty lawyers and while it must therefore be noted that there were few convictions it must also be noted that Stevie hasn't been sued either.

But my real point (you were no doubt wondering when I would get to it) is emphasized by the Attorney General's ministry in Nova Scotia.

Earlier this year, with all the subtlety of a wart hog in heat, the fuzz descended on Dr Nancy Morrison of Halifax and hauled her off to the slammer, a display that somehow the TV cameras were on hand to record. Days later we learned that she was alleged to have helped a terminal patient kill himself.

Dr Morrison was arraigned before a preliminary hearing - a process which Crown Counsel all across the land would love to see tubed because it erodes the powers they think they should exercise. A preliminary hearing requires that the Crown call sufficient evidence before a judge to warrant committing the accused for trial. The judge refused to commit Dr Morrison and discharged her, whereupon Crown Counsel, encouraged by the Attorney-General himself, launched an appeal. The "public" in the person of Crown Counsel may well have their day in court against Dr Nancy Morrison.

Not so lucky are members of the public who happen to be the families of the victims of the Westray Mine disaster six years ago.

An exhaustive inquiry by a respected judge was held. There could not have been a more comprehensive investigation and his report indicated gross negligence on the part of the owners and management of the mine and the Provincial government. Though this wasn't a preliminary hearing it was even more persuasive since Mr Justice Richard didn't just hear a bit of the evidence but all of it and more.

The families waited patiently for the charges to be laid.

On June 30 with little if any notice to the families, the prosecutors arranged a public meeting. Remember that the next day was a holiday and many folks were away. Hard to believe that the timing was accidental. The prosecutors stated that even though 26 men had been killed due to the gross neglect of the mine and the government that there was no reasonable prospect of a successful prosecution of anyone!

Is there one law for the high and the powerful and another for everyone else?

Heaven forfend that anyone should make that sort of suggestion!