Former Lancastrian

Ladies and gentlemen start your engines and begin typing or tapping

The case of a judge who asked a woman, "Why couldn't you just keep your knees together?" during an Alberta sexual assault trial is raising questions about what kind of behaviour warrants removing a justice from the bench.
Robin Camp case: What does it take to have a judge removed from the bench? - Canada - CBC News

If that statement wasn't kind and sensitive enough he then followed up with this

According to the complaint that prompted the review, in addition to the "keep your knees together" comment, Camp asked during the trial, "Why didn't you just sink your bottom down into the basin so he couldn't penetrate you?" (The woman alleged she was sexually assaulted over a sink).

Oakvillian

The mind boggles that not only can a judge think and act like this in 2014, but that he should have been promoted to the Federal bench since this trial.

The CBC story only touches the surface of the catalogue of inappropriate and un-judgely crap that came out of this guy's mouth during the trial. Take a look at the substance of the complaint (which has excerpts from the trial transcript - I haven't taken the time to find or read the complete transcript) http://s3.documentcloud.org/document...int-r-camp.pdf

He really does seem to have a problem with the law as it is written. For sure, it is a valuable thing that Canadian judges are independent, but it is not OK for them to decide they don't like a particular aspect of the law and therefore refuse to apply it. He should go.

Almost Canadian

It doesn't look good, but I would like to see the entire transcript.

He has an obligation to assess her credibility and an issue here appears to be whether she did, or did not, consent, but the quoted portions don't look good for him.

I actually know him personally and I am very surprised that he would make such comments.

Tangram

Not being a legal type dude, isn't it up the jury to "assess her credibility" not the judge ?

Genuine question.

Almost Canadian

It was a Provincial Court matter - judge only, similar to a District Judge Magistrates Court in England and Wales.

scrubbedexpat091

In a jury type situation would a judge need to ask questions for credibility? Or for credibility of evidence?

Just curious.

Tangram

Gotcha

Almost Canadian

That depends upon the jurisdiction. Ordinarily, in a jury trial, the Judge is there simply to officiate - to keep the questioning by the lawyers in accordance with the rules and to give guidance to the jury during the summing up. In Judge only trials they can also do the job of an ineffective lawyer if they believe that a question should have been asked, but wasn't.

I have read through the complaint letter (written by what I believe are academics) and I assume that they have cherry picked the worst comments/questions that were made by this particular judge. Whether they have taken them out of context depends upon the entirety of the transcript.

For example, consent was obviously an issue and, possibly, the claimant may have answered a cross examination question by saying that she wasn't able to stop the accused by closing her legs. The Judge may have wanted to know why she was unable to (was there something that the accused was doing to prevent her?, for example) so he asked the question. The answer may have been perfectly acceptable but her answer, and what he said afterwards, has not been produced.

I have read the Court of Appeal's decision (but, again, not the transcript) and the Court of Appeal makes reference to the Judge's inappropriate comments, but also that he appeared to misunderstand the law.

I accept that many of the comments appear completely inappropriate but without the full transcript, it really is impossible to know in what context the comments were made.

Barely a day goes by when a Judge doesn't say to me that s/he doesn't believe that the law is correct, or sensible, but it is what it is and therefore they are bound by it, so it doesn't surprise me that me made such comments. I would like to be able to read the transcript of his decision: the reasons why he acquitted and the evidence upon which he based those reasons.

However, transcripts are prohibitively expensive for such an exercise.

Former Lancastrian

Eloquently put AC but its the optics that don't look good for the average person who doesn't understand the legal system like you. In that story it also shows that only 2 Federally appointed Judges since 1971 have been recommended for dismissal and both resigned before a decision was made. Is this why there is a growing call to have Judges elected rather than appointed? Lets face it we read what are perceived as horrendous judgements made by them and evidence tends to suggest they receive little scrutiny and are a law unto themselves.

Are their good judges absolutely but its the ones whose heads are so far up their own ass and show off that air of superiority to others that are the problem.
Yes some are constrained by sentencing guidelines etc etc but there has been a slow and ever growing call for these types of judges to become more accountable and face sanctions when they are wrong.

dbd33

Is there such a thing? What a terrible idea.

Almost Canadian

The reason why it is rare for a judge to be dismissed is that it is rare for a judge to do something that justifies dismissal. The appeal process is there for a reason and, most of the time, this deals with a judge getting the law wrong. What most people don't realise is that an appeal can only be successful if a judge made an error of law. One can't successfully appeal simply because one doesn't like the result.

Judges also make mistakes. We don't expect any members of any occupation to never make mistakes.

While the media have piled in due to the fact that the claimant was a victim of an alleged sexual assault, she was a witness and lawyers and judges cannot be limited in their questioning simply because others may feel sorry for the witness. I would like to think that, if the entire transcript was released, a completely different context would be placed upon his comments and his questions but I honestly don't know.

What you may not know is that he is South African and is famous for being far more direct that, perhaps, Canadians are used to from their judges.

As you have likely realised, the claimant will have to go through another trial as the Court of Appeal directed that another trial is necessary. I sincerely pity her for having to have to go through another trial.

I completely agree.

Former Lancastrian

Well according to these articles one might think so
Why it’s time to elect our judges
Canadian Parliamentary Review - Article
Tories appoint 43 judges in June, filling long-standing vacancies - The Globe and Mail

Even the US have had several articles on if there judges should be elected rather than appointed. No horse in this race as the only time I hope in front of a judge is as a witness for the prosecution or defence and not the accused or defendant

Almost Canadian

Who would vote in their elections?

dbd33

I think the main point of the first piece is that the author feels that some judges make decisions that are political in nature and that elected judges would make political decisions more in line with the desires of the public. I don't think this argument has been thought through.

"If judges were elected they would undoubtedly be more sensitive to the pulse of the general public and less likely to cling to the ideology of their elite educations."

I suggest that no one in Canada is more sensitive to the pulse of the general public and more free from the ideological shackles imposed by an elite education than Justin Bieber. I think he's highly electable. He's a good candidate because he's rich, he doesn't need to corrupt his office in order to raise funds for his next election campaign. I'd sooner take my chances with someone who's been lawyering than singing.

The author might, of course, argue that it's not anyone who could stand to be a judge. There'd be a selection system, run by, er, politicians and judges.

The second and third pieces seem to put the same point, it is that governments tend to appoint judges with whom they are in broad political sympathy. In essence, the complaint is the reverse of that made in the first piece. How having judges elected, elected by the same people, presumably at the same intervals, as the politicians, would bring about a different result isn't obvious to me.

The US does, of course, have elected legal officials. Fred Thompson managed to be one and to play one on TV.

Oakvillian

A very fine summary. I was writing something vaguely similar when w*rk got in the way, and it's now redundant.

Except to point out that it's worth following the link to the personal sites of the author of the first piece. Her blog is eye-opening, if only for the size and frequency of pictures of herself attempting to look by turns serious, frivolous, intelligent and (presumably, it's difficult to tell as she's trying so hard) alluring. Narcissist, much? Anybody might think she's building up a portfolio of stock images that could be used in, say, an election campaign...