So now that you know the who, what, where, when, why and the how of PIs, let’s look at what the current debate is. In other words, why should you as a resident of Alberta care about this issue?
Basically….. this is another question of balance (such a surprise, I know!). How do we balance the rights of people (the accused, the victims, the taxpayers…to name a few) and the interests of the legal tenants that our democracy is based upon (speedy trial, not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned, to know the case against you…to name a few).
Let’s look at some of the arguments on both the pro and the con sides of the PI issue (and this is by no means an exhaustive list – just a few things that come to mind on a summer afternoon).
Let’s start with the con PI side.
- PIs result in hearing and examining the same evidence twice; it is fiscally more efficient to do this only once. Everything that is dealt with at PIs can be dealt with at trial.
- With PIs, victims are put through the ordeal of having to testify, and having to be cross-examined twice. This can be unnecessarily traumatizing.
- With the rules requiring disclosure, PIs are no longer necessary. Disclosure already meets the right of knowing the case against you. This is duplication.
- The Provincial Court (where PIs occur) is clogged, and it is resulting in the dismissal of cases and therefore, the denial of justice to victims.
- The system can be trusted to not bring frivolous or unjustified charges.
- In order to continue protecting the rights of the accused, PIs could be maintained for the most serious cases.
And now the pro PI side.
- The clogging of the Provincial Court is not merely the result of PIs. Similarly, PIs are not necessarily the source of pre-trial delay. Depending on the nature of the case, there may be other pre-trial motions or hearings that take place before the trial. Are changes to PIs really the best solution to PC clogging?
- PIs can often have a “clarifying effect” and therefore lead to cost savings. Depending on the evidence that emerges, an accused may decide to plead guilty, or the Crown may decide not to proceed to trial (i.e.: the charges are withdrawn). Alternatively, a PI can lead to agreed evidence, thus shortening the subsequent trail.
- The evidence presented in a PI can lead to additional or more serious charges, thus a more accurate charge for the crime alleged to have been committed by the Accused.
- What evidence you see from disclosure (i.e. on paper) is not the same thing as testing the strength of that evidence. For example: cross-examination often leads to more information, such as a clearer picture of the credibility of witnesses.
- A lack of PIs could lead to a greater number of frivolous charges, and unjustified detention of accused persons. As a result, getting rid of preliminary hearings could lead to unnecessary trials, appeals, mistrials and wrongful convictions, and, naturally, an increase in trials listed in Court of King’s Bench.
Complicated issue isn’t it? Not so easy to analyze without a whole a bunch of thought, analysis, and perhaps some statistics.
As is always the case, there are no easy answers to this one. This is very complex stuff, and all our rights – both as potential accused and potential victims, and as loved ones of other potential accused and potential victims – are on the line. So, too, are our interests as tax-payers.
The issue is currently under review by a working group of officials from all levels of government. Go learn more, go ask some questions, and go put in your two cents… it is both your right and your obligation as a member of this democracy.