My colleague Linda Nguyen reports:
Former Alberta MP Rahim Jaffer plead guilty on Tuesday to one count of careless driving and was fined $500 in an Orangeville, Ont., courtroom.
Mr. Jaffer, 37, was initially charged with cocaine possession, impaired driving and speeding stemming from an incident last September in Palgrave, Ont., about 60 kilometres north of Toronto. Those charges were withdrawn Tuesday by the Crown, who said that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.
“I'm sure you can recognize a break when you see one,” Judge Doug Maund told Mr. Jaffer before fining him . . .
Jaffer's former caucus colleagues immediately tried to distance themselves from the decision and the case. The line from all Conservative MPs, when asked, was that it was a provincial matter, that the prosecutor in the case was a provincial appointee. Public Safety Minister Vic Toews even went far enough to point out that it was a Liberal administration in Ontario responsible for the case.
Well, turns out the judge in the case, Doug Maund is a long-time Tory:
- When Brian Mulroney was prime minister, Maund was the chief of staff to Mulroney's health minister Perrin Beatty.
- He backed Kim Campbell in the leadership race to succeed Mulroney
- He was appointed to the Ontario bench in October, 2000 by the Ontario attorney general of the day, none other than current federal finance minister Jim Flaherty.
David it was the Crown attorney, Not the judge! that stated Not Enough Evidence to proceed & recomened those charges dropped.
So is the Crown Attorney in on this conservative conspiracy
Gawd david no wonder very few read you anymore always looking for the smoking gun
Akin brings up a fair point. The judge had to approve this deal, even though it was negotiated by the crown. Any word on who this prosecutor is?
So the judge is corrupt and favors Conservatives huh David? What a disgusting stretch to try and make.
I have to agree with the first anonymous poster, David. The prosecutor is the one who makes these deals, not the judge. If a plea agreement is made, the judge doesn't have to decide on sentencing since a plea has been reached.
Besides, just read what the judge said about being able to read between the lines. Do you really think a judge in on a fix would have to read between the lines? Oh, where do we get such astute perception in our media.
Oh come on Akin, stop looking for a political story when there is none. This case saw the cocaine and alcohol charges dropped due to the prosecution realizing it didn't have a strong enough case to proceed with suitable charges, not due to the judge being biased. End of story.
Furthermore, while it's true that Jaffer was a Conservative MP, he was turfed from his riding by party brass for (so it's rumored, anyways) his proclivity for exactly these sorts of behaviors. The Liberals, NDP and Bloc can attempt to link the government to this sad scandal all they want, but seeing as how Jaffer is no longer an MP, hasn't been for a while (and wasn't when the incident took place) it all sounds a little trite.
That being said, Jaffer's behavior is completely inexcusable and it's entirely fair game for people to point out his apparent hypocrisy re: illegal narcotic use. It's also fair game to argue that he got off far too easy considering the seriousness of charges that were initially levied against against him (and his prior support for tougher sentencing against narcotics violations). But to suggest that this is a case of political interference or judicial bias is a stretch – at best.
On a side note, mainstream media sources tend to pillory conservative-minded folk when they suggest a liberal judicial bias, so it's rather ironic now to see them hunting for a conservative one…
Your third point is not relevant. Provincial justices in Ontario are not “chosen” by cabinet. They rubber-stamp it. The justices's names are forwarded by independent boards after candidates are interviewed. The Harrisites tried to politicize the process, but they were unable to. It is not like the federal level, which is more political.
Edmonchuk
We don't know why the Crown decided there was no likelihood of obtaining a conviction. One possible reason, is the Judge refused to allow evidence collected at the time of the incident to be admitted.
Very disappointed to see this kind of comment coming from you David. The felony charges were dropped by the prosecutor, not dismissed by the judge.
Gee I wonder if the Conservatives are thinking “Damn Conservative judges”?
Gee, David. As I recall, it was the Liberals who set the bar on plea bargains. Jaffer got what he deserved – nothing less, nothing more. He was treated like every other first offender.
500.00 fine…that's it? Is he allowed to drive now?
My son was charged at 18 years old for a DUI…just barely above the legal limit. We understood the implications of drinking and driving and my son paid the price….over 5000.00 in lawyers fees, his driver's license suspended for a year, insurance premiums tripling for the following three years, and a criminal record – my son will pay his price for quite some time. Better than killing someone we told him and he agreed.
So the lovely Jaffer was charged with a DUI along with cocaine possesion and speeding – and got off with a 500.00 fine…wow – must be nice to be Jaffer!
I guess the drinking and driving laws only apply to the middle/lower, non political classes.
Excuse me…I have to go throw up now…I've had too much to drink.
Good catch, David. Have they already called your expose' the lowest point of journalism yet? Watch out as he may prorogue your website. lol
Rahim Jaffer's radio ad in the last general election:
“Edmontonians understand how difficult it is to make sure our children make the right choices, especially on serious issues like drug use. The Conservative Party supports drug-free schools and getting tough with drug dealers who sell illegal drugs to children. Don't let our schools go up in smoke. On Oct. 14, vote Conservative.”
There is no political story here. If anyone is to blame, it is the prosecutor for negotiating the deal. The Liberals' pathetic attempt to link the government with this case is just that: pathetic! Of course, the Liberals are trying everything, anything to find something to pin on the Conservatives to match the scale of Adscam.
In a word….. typical!!!! and am I surprised NO!!!!!
Again, if someone has the means to hire the best litigator money can buy and call in some favours…big surprise. As the crown and defense sip their lattes, plea bargaining away some other less fortunate person's life, Jaffer gets the break of his life.
It's sad to say that Jaffer will probably be back in court as the punishment may not have been enough to knock some sense into that brain of his, just hope no one gets hurt in the process.
appalling !!!
The judge does not need to approve of charges being withdrawn by the crown.
Not only is David Akin incorrect about the crown prosecutor being a Liberal, he is also incorrect about the judge. As David points out with his research: Kim Campbell, Perrin Beatty, Brian Mulroney – not conservatives, just small 'l' liberals…and presumably so is their friend the judge – yes, a 'tory', but not a conservative.
Another point no one seems willing to examine is, despite the possible liberalism of both prosecutor and judge, was there ever a chance of conviction? Apparently slightly above the limit, but maybe not – no proof the 'cocaine' was his, etc. – how about interviewing some criminal defence lawyers to find out how often people are actually convicted on such 'evidence' – that would be some real journalism…
David,
I followed this story to your blog and have been reading some of the threads herein and I have to tell you there are two things which concern me …
1)Why did it take me so long to get here? And why are you the only person I can find who is asking some of the questions which as a Canadian, I want the answers to. OK, so that's two questions. But this one should be easier to answer…
2)After reading some of the more spiteful threads in response to your article, how many people do you think the opposition employs fulltime just to keep your email box full? It is the only explanation for these people who defend the people who defend Jaffer, without knowing the full story. Go get real jobs@!
I suppose the real question is more underlying and surely rhetorical. I simply want to know, why? Keep up the good work, David.
JaxPrat
David, the insinuation that you're making here is beneath you.
You try to state that the judge is corrupt. You either are incompetent and didn't do any research or you willfully and knowingly besmerched this judges reputation so you could try to score political points. Despicable!
The word “Crown”, referred to in the above term “Crown attorney”, refers to the “Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.
The provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick expressed their desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the Crown of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”, not the Crown of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”, according to the British North America Act, 1867.
Poor conservatives posting to this board. Don't seem to get what the story is. The tough on crime for everyone else conservatives bending themselves into pretzels over how not to go after one of their own….same conservatives who think possession of drugs for personal use is reason enough to send 18 year olds to jail for the rest of their lives. There's a saying about glass houses…