On July 23, 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in City of Vancouver and the Province of British Columbia v. Ward, that monetary compensation is appropriate when an individual’s rights have been violated under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
It is the first time in history that Canada’s highest court has said that damages are an appropriate remedy in cases where an individual’s charter rights have been violated.
Ward involved a situation in which Ward was wrongfully arrested by Vancouver Police Department members who were acting on a tip that an unknown person had planned to throw a pie at then Prime Minister Jean Chretien at a public event in Vancouver. The VPD arrested Mr. Ward and strip searched him once he was in a prison cell. He was released several hours later when the police realized that they had caught the wrong person.
The Supreme Court of Canada, led by Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin ruled that Mr. Ward’s section 7, 8, and 9 rights under the Charter had been violated by the police. The fundamental question in this case was whether monetary damages for compensation should be awarded in cases of abusive and tortuous conduct by the police. Canada’s highest court ruled that damages can be an appropriate remedy for a violation of Charter Rights under s. 24 (1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Although Mr. Ward was only awarded a small amount of money, the principle that his case set was huge.
The Supreme Court of Canada is sending a clear message to authorities. The police must not abuse their powers and they must act in good faith when investigating crimes and seeking out possible suspects. They must remember that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is absolute; it does not disappear or not apply to people in Canada when the police are investigating a crime. The Charter applies at all times, whether the police are investigating a murder or a mischief call.
The Court has sent a clear message to Canadians, stating that your rights mean something in this country. Your rights are not arbitrary; they are not contingent on circumstances or situations but they are absolute. Authorities across the nation will have to realize that the Charter stands for the rights of citizens and if they fail to respect those rights, they will be issuing a lot more than apologies.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
BC Government Appeals BC Supreme Court Decision on Jamie Bacon
Attorney General and Solicitor General, Mike de Jong, announced yesterday that the B.C. government will be appealing the decision of B.C. Supreme Court Justice Mark McEwan.
On June 9, 2010, Mr. Justice McEwan criticized the prison warden at the Surrey Pre-Trial Centre for violating Mr. Bacon’s section 7 right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Justice McEwan went as far as saying that prison warden Debbie Hawboldt aided the police in keeping Bacon in isolation and restricting his phone calls. Mr. Justice McEwan concluded that Bacon was subjected to inhumane conditions while he was held at the Surrey Pre-Trial Centre.
Even while Mike de Jong announced that the B.C. government will be appealing the decision of Justice McEwan, the lawyer for Jamie Bacon contends that Bacon is still subjected to inhumane treatment while locked behind bars.
Jamie Bacon is accused of murder in one of the biggest serial murder cases in B.C. history. That said, significant questions remain as to the repeated attack of the government and the police on Mr. Bacon: Is this a classic case of pressing hard on the accused to make him break? Are the police trying to send a message to gangsters in the lower mainland?
While I do not condone any violence, including gang violence, I believe that everyone should be treated fairly by the criminal justice system.
Mr. Bacon is only accused of murder in the ‘Surrey Six’ murders. He has not been found guilty; the presumption of innocence remains. We must follow the proper process to determine innocence or guilt, not simply start labeling people as criminals once they have been arrested.
The fact that the police would take an unfair advantage over an accused when all the resources of the state are arrayed against him is the first step towards a totalitarian state. We must not subject people to inhumane treatment while in custody. This goes against everything Canada stands for.
Only time will tell the outcome of this case. A fundamental question in this case: will the criminal justice system succumb to the will of the government and the police or will the courts tell the police and the government to stay within their boundaries? All criminal cases are, to some extent, about this question. I trust and rely on our judges to check the power of the state; otherwise, every citizen’s rights are on the line.
On June 9, 2010, Mr. Justice McEwan criticized the prison warden at the Surrey Pre-Trial Centre for violating Mr. Bacon’s section 7 right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Justice McEwan went as far as saying that prison warden Debbie Hawboldt aided the police in keeping Bacon in isolation and restricting his phone calls. Mr. Justice McEwan concluded that Bacon was subjected to inhumane conditions while he was held at the Surrey Pre-Trial Centre.
Even while Mike de Jong announced that the B.C. government will be appealing the decision of Justice McEwan, the lawyer for Jamie Bacon contends that Bacon is still subjected to inhumane treatment while locked behind bars.
Jamie Bacon is accused of murder in one of the biggest serial murder cases in B.C. history. That said, significant questions remain as to the repeated attack of the government and the police on Mr. Bacon: Is this a classic case of pressing hard on the accused to make him break? Are the police trying to send a message to gangsters in the lower mainland?
While I do not condone any violence, including gang violence, I believe that everyone should be treated fairly by the criminal justice system.
Mr. Bacon is only accused of murder in the ‘Surrey Six’ murders. He has not been found guilty; the presumption of innocence remains. We must follow the proper process to determine innocence or guilt, not simply start labeling people as criminals once they have been arrested.
The fact that the police would take an unfair advantage over an accused when all the resources of the state are arrayed against him is the first step towards a totalitarian state. We must not subject people to inhumane treatment while in custody. This goes against everything Canada stands for.
Only time will tell the outcome of this case. A fundamental question in this case: will the criminal justice system succumb to the will of the government and the police or will the courts tell the police and the government to stay within their boundaries? All criminal cases are, to some extent, about this question. I trust and rely on our judges to check the power of the state; otherwise, every citizen’s rights are on the line.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)