|
Return Mail Order Justice
To: Letter to Editor Prior to your “Supreme contempt” postscript of March 8, 1999, I viewed the Dube-McClung uproar with amusement. Finally, the nine political hacks who presently comprise the Supreme Court of Canada were getting a taste of their own medicine. However, your short article places the issue in a different perspective. Vacating a lower court decision based upon principles of law, the criminal statutes and their interpretation may be the prerogative of the Supreme Court. But I submit that actually imposing a verdict is not. The judgement of the jury and judge who presided in the original case and are intimately familiar with the details must remain paramount in Canadian jurisprudence. What the Supreme Court did in this case is mail order justice. It is bitterly ironic that the very foundation of Canadian jurisprudence and democracy is being undermined by the nine people most entrusted to uphold it.
Yours sincerely |