Ex-Tory MP Jaffer charged with cocaine possession

[Visionseeker]

This

My take on it is, I could care less who was drunk driving with cocaine. Charge with full extent of the law.

Contradicts this

The fact that he is a celebrity should garner an even higher sentance because he knowingly broke the law while campaigning under tough on crime (if the police reports are true) and to set an example.

I view people like this as cancer. Jaffer has become a cancer to the CPC with this incident. he should have been thrown under the bus the second it happened. It would be one hell of a deterrant to other party MP's to not screw around. Metaphorically speaking, if there is cancer, there needs to be chemotherapy...

Your outrage is quite palpable. But does it really serve any purpose here?

Edited March 11, 2010 by Visionseeker

[capricorn]

I think the fact that he has a lot of money has more to do with getting off on his charges than his connections do too.

I too doubt connections had anything to do with the charges being dropped. It was a Crown Attorney in a provincial Liberal government that made the decision to withdraw the charges. Why won't the Crown Attorney explain to the public the specific reasons the charges were dropped?

What makes me mad is that SOME people seem to be able to buy their way out of touble, so it is two-tiered justice.

When you have money, you can buy the best defence. When you don't have the money you increase your chances of getting poor to mediocre representation before the law.

Let me be clear. I do not think that Mr Jaffer or anyone else should go to jail for what he was accused of.

I disagree. The charges were serious and if proved in court would require more than a slap on the wrist. What riles me is that so many cases are thrown out because of technicalities. This point is brought home each time a high profile person is involved and we get to discuss it. But according to some experts, this happens every day in our courts.

I really think that eyeball is on to something with the automation thing. Not full automation, but a mandatory detection system on all registered vehicles that could shuts down the vehicle and calls the police if it detects erratic driving behaviour. When the police get there they could determine if the person was in fact fit to drive.

If that was the case, more than half of all vehicles on our roads would come to a standstill simply due to boneheaded, irresponsible drivers.

Alta4ever said " Sorry but you aren't going to take the pleasure I get from driving my car away from me."

Funny, I feel the same way about my ganja.

So long as you don't drive under the influence of your favorite plant, you can toke up at home to your heart's content.

[DrGreenthumb]

If that was the case, more than half of all vehicles on our roads would come to a standstill simply due to boneheaded, irresponsible drivers.

Good, then we can identify the idiots in short order and pull their liscences, making the road a safer place for others.

[blueblood]

This

Contradicts this

Your outrage is quite palpable. But does it really serve any purpose here?

Oh, I wasn't clear enough. There's charging (throwing in all charges that apply), and then the sentancing. Sure there may be many charges brought forth in court, but sometimes the sentancing doesn't match the charges brought forth (i.e. plea bargaining, judges discretion, etc.).

The purpose is to make an example out of people in the public eye. I'm quite sure there are a number of celebrities that have a sense of entitlement and disregard for the law, and this was an opportunity to display that some people are not above it. Priors or not.

[waldo]

can't they just leave the poor former Conservative MP and husband of a current Conservative Minister alone...

MADD Jaffer!

The Crown and defence struck a deal that the judge in the case described as a "break" for Jaffer. Charges of cocaine possession and impaired driving were dropped and Jaffer pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of careless driving. He was fined $500.

Critics contend Jaffer got a sweetheart deal, in light of evidence that he blew over the legal limit in breathalyser tests.

There has been speculation that police flubbed the gathering of evidence, prompting the Crown to say that it did not have a strong enough case for a reasonable chance of conviction.

"We want to know what kind of deal was made and why they didn't proceed on the evidence," Murie said.

[M.Dancer]

Wanting to know how the crown messed up, if they did mess up, or ewhy the crown decided not to pursue other charges is a reasonable and rightful request.

[kimmy]

Jaffer plea deal 'not so unusual': lawyer

A lot of people are up in arms based on the belief that Jaffer received special treatment.

In reality, it looks more like people should be up in arms because this is how the system works in most cases:

"What happened in this case is not so unusual," said Toronto criminal defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger. "As I read right now, nothing jumps out as a miscarriage of justice.... The reality is it's reflective of the evidence."

Nationally, impaired driving represents about 11% of adult criminal court cases, about the same proportion as assault and theft. In the majority of cases, the accused, like Mr. Jaffer, is 35 or older.

According to Statistics Canada, in 2006-07, there were 95,503 impaired driving charges in Canada.

Those led to 32,594 convictions, of which about 10% resulted in prison sentences, 11% in probation, less than 1% in conditional sentences, and 85% in fines, of which the average was around $800.

-k

[scribblet]

Indeed, and here is another respected Criminal Lawyer's opinion - but - did you ever stop to consider that it's really a Liberal conspiracy to discredit the CPC and gain some political brownie points. Heck, I bet the prosecutor and defence lawyers are big Liberal supporters so did this just to set up the CPC.

http://news.sympatico.ctv.ca/abc/home/contentposting.aspx?isfa=1&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V3&showbyline=True&date=true&newsitemid=CTVNews%2F20100308%2FSteven_Skurka_100310

7) Was the Crown at fault for not providing a full explanation in court for the plea bargain?

It is easy to blame the Crown in hindsight. However, this was not a typical case and the resulting misgivings with the deal could have been gauged in advance. The public reaction is unfortunate because the apparent secrecy has raised questions about the integrity of the administration of justice that are entirely unwarranted. The integrity of the Crown who acted in this case is unassailable.

There was no political interference and indeed if there was no reasonable prospect for conviction, the Crown should be applauded for reaching a bold decision to withdraw the criminal charges. The cryptic explanation for the withdrawal in court predictably heightened public suspicion about a two-tiered system of justice. The Attorney General must take active steps to alleviate such alarming concerns.

[eyeball]

According to Statistics Canada, in 2006-07, there were 95,503 impaired driving charges in Canada.

Those led to 32,594 convictions...

How many more people never get caught? I bet it's an exponential number.

I think I've seen enough evidence to argue for making breathalyzer ignition interlocks standard equipment in all cars. The alternative is to give police more power, in this case by allowing random breathalyzer tests. Further to that we'd have to hire more police, bring in mandatory sentencing and build courts and more prisons etc.

Technology is the way to go. Turning the country into a police state just seems like a really poor choice.

Edited March 14, 2010 by eyeball

[ironstone]

Rahim Jaffer isn't the only one to get off lightly.Didn't some lady named Margret Trudeau get off after "her charter rights were violated"?Wasn't she caught driving while impaired?

[Sir Bandelot]

Rahim Jaffer was "given a break" by the judge (judge's own words), but this must raise the question, how would this have been possible under the new mandatory minimum drug laws being proposed by the Conservative government? I assume ther could be no judges discretion as there was in this case.

"I'm sure you can recognize a break when you see one," Justice Doug Maund told Jaffer.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jSgx5mFBuvGNhTCnr6H0YF2vPYww

[eyeball]

Rahim Jaffer was "given a break" by the judge (judge's own words), but this must raise the question, how would this have been possible under the new mandatory minimum drug laws being proposed by the Conservative government? I assume ther could be no judges discretion as there was in this case.

I can't see why you'd even need a judge never mind their discretion.

[dpwozney]

... The integrity of the Crown who acted in this case is unassailable.

There was no political interference and indeed if there was no reasonable prospect for conviction, the Crown should be applauded for reaching a bold decision to withdraw the criminal charges. The cryptic explanation for the withdrawal in court predictably heightened public suspicion about a two-tiered system of justice. The Attorney General must take active steps to alleviate such alarming concerns.

The so-called “Attorney General”, Chris Bentley, stated his allegiance to Elizabeth the Second. Elizabeth the Second is not Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, contrary to the requirement in this Fifth Schedule, which states:

“Oath of Allegiance

I A.B. do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria.

Note. The Name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the Time being is to be substituted from Time to Time, with proper Terms of Reference thereto.”.

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.

[Smallc]

We're no longer under that particular Crown, so your point (which you repeat over and over) is not a point at all.

[dpwozney]

We're no longer under that particular Crown, so your point (which you repeat over and over) is not a point at all.

What particular Crown do you claim that you are no longer under?

[Smallc]

We are under the Crown of Canada.

[dpwozney]

We are under the Crown of Canada.

In your view, is this “Crown of Canada” different than, or the same as, the “Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”?

[Smallc]

It is completely different....and not just in my view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada

[dpwozney]

It is completely different...

Then why has not Section 128 and the Fifth Schedule of this document been updated or amended?

Section 128 states:

“Every Member of the Senate or House of Commons of Canada shall before taking his Seat therein take and subscribe before the Governor General or some Person authorized by him, and every Member of a Legislative Council or Legislative Assembly of any Province shall before taking his Seat therein take and subscribe before the Lieutenant Governor of the Province or some Person authorized by him, the Oath of Allegiance contained in the Fifth Schedule to this Act; ....”.

The Fifth Schedule states:

“Oath of Allegiance

I A.B. do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria.

Note. The Name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the Time being is to be substituted from Time to Time, with proper Terms of Reference thereto.”.

[Smallc]

I don't know, but it doesn't really matter, since that's not the oath that people take.

[maple_leafs182]

end the war on drugs.

Why do people care if he does cocaine, let him live his life.

[dpwozney]

I don't know, but it doesn't really matter, since that's not the oath that people take.

“Members of the Senate or House of Commons of Canada” and “Members of a Legislative Council or Legislative Assembly of any Province” are people. Do these people not adhere to the so-called “supreme law of Canada”?

[Smallc]

The Oath is now taken to Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada.

[dpwozney]

The Oath is now taken to Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada.

This “Oath of Citizenship” refers to “Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada”. The “Oath of Citizenship” is different than the “Oath of Allegiance” in this Fifth Schedule.

[Smallc]

The Oath is still taken to the same person. There are other parts of the Constitution that have updated usages (such as the number of MPs) but still have the same Constitutional writing.