(This column was
published in the North Shore News on Jan. 28,
2004)
North Van court case takes a twist
By
Leo Knight
MUCH has been said since Jason Roy Carter, 31, was given an 18 month conditional sentence two weeks ago by North Vancouver provincial court Judge Bill Rodgers, following Carter's eighth conviction for a drinking and driving offence.
Most of the invective has been focused on Rodgers.
But in this case, I'm not entirely sure that's appropriately directed. And no, I'm not going soft on you. Perish the thought.
Rodgers is confined by the precedent decisions of his brother and sister judges in superior courts in these matters.
And, in this day and age of liberalism run amok, it's desperately difficult to get a court to send anyone to jail.
Rodgers understands this.
He knows that if he gives the people who appear before him what they really deserve, he will be reversed on appeal every time. And that is just a waste of time and taxpayer money.
Like all the other judges worth their salt in our system of so-called justice, Rodgers knows he has to pick his fights.
And the Carter case, as it was presented, was not worth going to the mat over.
Carter had already spent five months in jail since he'd been arrested, so-called "dead time." In the justice system, for some bizarre reason, dead time is counted as two times actual time by any judge considering a jail sentence.
Ergo, for the purposes of this discussion, Carter had already spent 10 months in jail. And 10 months for drinking and driving, driving while prohibited and being in possession of a stolen car, is pretty much it in B.C., the softest touch for criminals in the western world.
So, instead of Rodgers giving Carter an additional three months, which he probably could have gotten away with, he chose to believe in the rare situation presented to him by Carter's lawyer, with letters from prison guards no less, speaking up for this habitual problem.
After all, in this manner, he actually tied the guy up with heavy conditions, for far longer using a CSO (conditional sentence order) than he could have with a 90-day sentence.
How so? Well, under the 18-month CSO, Carter has to provide to any peace officer, on demand, a blood or urine sample to demonstrate compliance with the court order to refrain from drinking any alcoholic substance.
If he fails to comply or fails a test, he goes to jail for the rest of his 18-month sentence.
This is a lot stronger than the usual conditions of "keep the peace and be of good behaviour," inherent in the probation which would follow a 90-day sentence.
Rodgers relied on the two letters provided to him by Carter's lawyer, Talman Rodockar, letters purported to have been written by two corrections officers.
Rodgers knows that praise given by guards for cons means either the con is exceptional and worthy of a break, or it is a "con" of a different sort.
In this case, it was allegedly the latter.
A few members of the RCMP, after sitting around shaking their heads at the latest affront from the courts, decided to check and see if the letters were authentic.
Carter is now charged with obstructing justice and using forged documents in connection with that investigation.
Far from dragging Rodgers to the stocks on the village green, why aren't we discussing how the prison guards' letters, which are now alleged to be false, could have found their way to him in court?
Meanwhile, the Crown is held to account for every syllable uttered, all the while keeping an eye on the allocated budget, which tends to result in asinine decisions to only take to trial cases which are absolute slam dunks.
Crown prosecutors wind up engaging in plea bargains in the interests of expediency and pragmatism, not justice.
If the allegations concerning the prison guard letters are proven in court, the sentencing system appears to have another problem.
-30-