Summary:Johal, Johal, and Deo are the defendants in this case who are being charge with kidnapping with the intent to transport a person against his/her will. The defendants later extorted the victim and the victim’s family. The issue before the court today is whether the charge of kidnapping subsumes the charge of extortion or if the charge of extortion is an independent act from that of kidnapping. Were the proceedings cooperative or adversarial?
The cooperative nature of the trial was characterized by the affable titles used by the lawyers and the judge when addressing each other and by the opportunities given to all parties to express their full opinion. Judge Silverman was referred to as “your honourable justice” and “your lordship” while how “my friend described” particular situations implies the careful respect the parties paid to each others. In the issues addressed by the court, prosecuting and defending lawyers were given the opportunity to express their positions and the lawyers were additionally given numerous rebuttals as necessary for the judge to decide the matter upon.
The judge stated necessity that “we can all agree” on the facts and the representing lawyers had the opportunity to present their “respectful submission” on the applicable law and precedents before the judge would render his decision. The processions emphasized bringing all relevant evidence before the judge before he rendered his decision; this evidence came in the form citing specific statue law such as the criminal code and the details of precedent cases that had related issues. Precedent cases presented included Regina vs. Prince, Bar vs.
Tours, and the Kienapple case which parties used to address how they believed the application of law in those cases was relevant to this particular trial. The precedent case of Regina vs. Prince was examined to establish whether independent acts would result in independent criminal charges against the defendants; this was necessary in this trial to determine whether the act of kidnapping was a independent act from that of extortion after the kidnapping because if the defendants were charge under section 279-C rather than 297-A then there would be the possibility that the charge of kidnapping would subsume the charge of extortion.
In cases where it was felt that information was lacking, the honourable Justice Silverman specifically asked all parties if they could cite any other related cases. The cooperative nature of the trial recognized what the agreed upon facts and what were opinions about the application of law which allowed Judge Silverman to render judgement in a transparent manner that all observers can reason to be fair and equitable. Are the courts the best way of discovering truth? The court system and justice process has been around for a long length of time. Over that period of time it has evolved and continues to evolve.
At the present moment, the process is the best method known for finding the truth in a fair way. The justice process is continually evolving to become better at finding the truth, which is its ultimate goal. In our trial, the judge disallowed the submission of some evidence because it was deemed to be unfair, and did not comply with the submission of evidence rules. Consistency is paramount in the administration of justice and court processes, so in our trial prior cases were submitted in a large book. Additionally, the Keinapple principle was a very important point in the administration of justice.
Consistency breeds consistency, which as the system is designed, brings out the truth more often than not. We did notice, however, that much of the contention between the defence council and the prosecution was not to do with the facts, or what really happened, but with the administration of justice. With particular reference to the trial we watched, the issue was whether or not intent had to become an action in order for a crime to be committed and if the crime of extortion was subsumed by the charge of kidnapping. What is the role of the judge? z.
The processions of the trial indicate that the role of the judge is to establish the facts, to ensure the smooth proceedings of the trial, to allow the parties to submit what they believe to be the relevant law and application, and to render a decision on any contested issues. This can be discerned from the sequential operations of the trial. To begin the order of the day, the judge announced the purpose of the day’s proceedings which was to decide if the Kienapple principle applied and if the charge of kidnapping subsumed the charge of extortion or else if the two charges were independent acts of each other.
It became quickly apparent that the judge wanted to establish the agreed facts of the case based on affidavits previously given so that he could determine which law to apply. Careful consideration was given to previous cases to see if there were any relevant precedents to apply and the judge was thorough in asking the parties if they had researched any applicable precedent. The role of his honourable Judge Silverman was to To clarify the issues and facts so that law could be applied and a conclusion reached.