No Justice System

How much confidence should we have in our system of justice when three children are now dead and a mother is not a mother anymore due to the despicable crime committed by someone who should have been behind bars if it were not for a phone call that went horribly wrong.

In this day of instant everything, fast food, ATM's, email, we have chosen to take the humanity out of human services. Burgers, banking, mail and bail in a box is the new way we get what we want and get it fast.

In the old days, up to November 18, 2002, our community and all BC communities relied on local citizens appointed by the Office of the Chief Judge to conduct bail hearings and hear search warrant applications after hours, when the courts were closed. Stipendiary J.P.'s, as we were called, held a variety of occupations during the day and received monthly stipends determined by work load, the size of the police force, and the degree of isolation of their community. The stipends did not amount to much, a few thousand dollars a year, and this was more of a community service than a money making venture. When stipendiary J.P's were terminated suddenly in 2002, there were about 64 of us in B.C., and 5 of those served the North Island.

The new way of protecting the public after hours is done through a provincial call centre at Metrotown in Burnaby, over the phone, sardonically referred to as "bail in a box" by the police who have raised concerns from the beginning about slow response times and "bad" decision making by absentee J.P's.

In the old days, the police would call the local J.P. and a time would be arranged for the J.P. to attend the detachment, or, in the case of search warrant applications, they would visit the J.P. at their home, in the middle of the night if need be. This was an extremely efficient, low cost plan and personal service.

Now, the Judicial Justice Centre is staffed by 16 full time, 1 part time and
3 ad hoc Judicial Justices of the Peace, and in 2007 there were over 18,000 bail hearings done over the phone. They earn about $80,000.00 a year, which is going up, and the minimum standards for candidates now include a law degree and at least five years experience practicing law. The hearings are conducted in eight hour shifts, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and some of these hearings are held from offices in their homes over the phone.

In the old days, a local stipendiary J.P. had the benefit of being in the room with an accused. You could look them in eye, you could watch their body language, you could rely on your senses to help you determine if the person should be released on their own recognizance or with conditions or payment of bail, or if they should be remanded to appear in court at a later time, allowing the accused time to calm down, cool their jets, allowing the system to get things in place for future release, allowing the victims some time to cope and allowing protection for the public.

In the case of juveniles, it helped if there was a parent in the room, and it helped to see the dynamic between parent and child as that could tell you whether the child was apt to do as they were told, or be impossible to manage once they were out of eye shot of the authorities.

There are a lot of factors that influence why someone is remanded in custody. I once had an accused throw himself on his knees, sobbing loudly and begging me to let him go.
I noticed there were no tears. He was faking it. I would not have noticed this over the phone and the sounds of his sobbing were quite compelling. I saw another accused spit at a police officer on his way into the hearing room. I would not have seen this over the phone and it certainly influenced my decision whether to release him or not. I saw another accused directly violating conditions I had released him on earlier in the day. I would not have seen this from a call centre in Metrotown and the next time he promised me he would follow conditions of release I suspected otherwise. Sometimes seeing things as opposed to being told things assists in the administration of justice. The community needs to have confidence in that.

The rights of people in the administration of justice are best protected by someone who is "local", who knows the people, who knows the police, and who knows the community. This is particularly relevant in small communities.
Conducting bail hearings over the phone increases the chances of information going missing. Faxing a checklist to the decision maker filled with ticky boxes to say if there a previous record or whether the public will be outraged if the person is released is not the same as speaking to someone eye to eye, face to face, where you can see them and read them. I know I would want to look into the eyes of Mr. Schoenborn who had threatened a little girl in the school yard before deciding if he should be at large, I would want to see the body language of a man who had tried to flee police custody earlier in the day, especially when the police are saying he should not be released. And if the checklist and ticky boxes gave me grave concerns, as was stated by the JJP who released this man, nothing said over the phone would make me feel better about releasing him and "giving him a break".

Attorney-General Wally Oppal defended the system, saying it is "a good, fair system designed to give people access to the justice system after hours." I think we all have just cause to wonder whether the system we have access to provides justice for all.