Nos amis les juges. Chronique de Jim Duff.

Chronique extrêmement intéressante de Jim Duff parue dans le Hudson Gazette, un hebdomadaire anglophone publié dans la région de Vaudreuil-Soulanges, au sujet de nos amis les juges.

(Depuis un certain temps, Jim Duff, qui est aussi l'animateur de l'émission du retour à la maison de 940 News à Montréal, s'intéresse beaucoup à l'histoire de Patricia Jolicoeur, une femme qui s'est fait frapper par un chauffard alors qu'elle marchait sur une rue résidentielle en novembre 2006; elle a survécu mais l'accident l'a rendue très lourdement handicapée. Duff ne parle pas de cet accident et des procédures légales prises contre le chauffard dans sa chronique... probablement pour des raisons légales.)

-- Le couillon anonyme

Citation :

Duff's Corner -- Jim Duff
Dereliction of the worst kind

Last week, I asked one of Canada's most successful and respected criminal lawyers the conviction rate for motorists accused of drunk driving in Quebec. About 80 percent don't fight it, he said. Of the 20 percent who do, two-thirds win.

Why such a high win ratio? Lawyers shop for judges who they know have higher than average acquittal rates, he replied. If they draw the wrong judge, they ask for a delay until they're guaranteed of appearing before their man.

You're already ahead of me on my next question: Can a judge be bought?

Let's say a certain judge has a higher-than-average acquittal rate for traffic violations. There is no way of determining just how high, because that would necessitate combing through the court registry office, case by case. In other words, there is no mechanism by which the public can determine a judge's conviction rate. Only someone working in that jurisdiction - a lawyer, perhaps, or a judge's clerk - would know that. Insider information that leaves itself open to potential abuses with no mechanism by which to monitor the possibility.

Even if we ascertain that a certain judge acquits a higher than average percentage of the folks nailed after blowing into the balloon, not even the justice and public security ministers can touch him. That's because the Canadian legal system confers untouchable status on the judiciary. Only the Canadian Judicial Review Board can investigate a judge.

That uncertainty is what led the Harper government to suggest the police and public have a say in judicial appointments. It's why the Conservative Criminal Code revisions included mandatory minimums for those convicted of drunk driving and a reverse onus on anyone who tries to argue that the breathalyzer lied. As of June, you'll have to prove the breathalyzer was defective.

There's still no guarantee. Once it becomes harder for a judge to toss out a drunk-driving case on a technical issue, lawyers will concentrate on other weak links - the integrity of the chain of evidence, perhaps, or the testimony of our police officers. Challenging the evidence is what lawyers do, and rightly so.

I've talked to police officers who have become paranoid about whether certain judges are on the take or into the bottle. How else, they wonder, would any judge rule so consistently for those who are so brazenly contesting what would appear to be an open-and-shut drunk driving case? We should care, they say, because every day a cop is in court testifying in a traffic case, he or she isn't patrolling our streets. We should care because every drunk or reckless driver who escapes justice is emboldened to continue his or her antisocial behavior.

I've heard many stories about being able to buy a judge. It's also a standing joke at some political gatherings. But it's one thing to make snide remarks and another thing to stand up in court and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, then have to make the case over again before the judicial internal review board.

There are those who argue that elected judges and prosecutors tend to produce judgments more in step with what society wants. I see no benefit to a system that produced a hypocrite like Elliott Spitzer and a 78-month sentence for Conrad Black.

That said, why should the conviction rate of our judiciary be such a deep, dark secret available only to insiders?

I want to be able to write: "After several delays, the accused appeared before Judge ______, whose __ percent conviction rate for drunk/reckless driving makes him/her one of the most lenient judges in the region/province/nation."

Surely, a society fixated on goals-against averages, sacks and turnovers can get their collective heads around the need for a ratings system for the gatekeepers of our legal system? Nobody should be above accountability, especially not those whose positions and salaries supposedly put them beyond reproach.

Source : http://pages.infinit.net/gazette/Columns.html

très interressant en effet.

Je me demande si un bon avocat dans un cas de divorce pourrait 'magasiner so juge' ?

proxy a écrit:

très interressant en effet.

Je me demande si un bon avocat dans un cas de divorce pourrait 'magasiner so juge' ?

Un bon avocat? Les deux mots sont mutuellement incompatibles. Il y a ceux qui connaissent la loi, et les autres qui connaissent les juges! Le "judge's shopping" est une pratique courante. À partir d'un bassin d'avocats véreux, nous en sommes réduits à accepter la nomination de juges fripons qui, à chaque jour, tournent en dérision l'institution qu'ils se sont pourtant engager à servir avec honneur et intégrité...

Voir le dossier de Daniel Bédard pour en avoir un exemple probant.