Quote:
Originally Posted by Nage Waza
I wouldn't want ten murderers walking around free to keep one innocent person out of jail. To do that, I think the whole justice system would have to fold, since no one would be convicted of anything anymore.
|
You must not like living in Canada, the U.S. or England--or anywhere in the commonwealth.
The ten-to-one ratio is an accepted principle of justice under English common law. Other ratios have been suggested (as low as 4-1 and as high as 1000-1) but 10-1 is known as the "Blackstone Principle" after English jurist William Blackstone, though the actual principle is much older.
The key to it is this: the burden of proving the guilt of a person accused of an offense lies on the Crown, and never shifts to the accused. It's a fundamental limitation of state power and a key principle (in my view) in a free society.
Like valo, I'm extremely troubled by this ruling. Given the court's logic in
Christie, it's not really a huge shock. Unfortunately, the Charter specifically only guarantees counsel to persons "charged with an offence." In
Christie, the court found that access to counsel was not a principle of fundamental justice under s. 7 of the charter--so given that, it's hard to see how they could come to any other conclusion than the one that they did.
Ultimately, it's a very troubling decision, but I sort of feel like the court's hands were tied, given the wording of the Charter.