Rona reform worthwhile

One of the problems with judges is that they’re in the business of looking backwards.

Decisions are made based on the way decisions were made in the past. As they craft today’s decisions and sentences, judges are expected to look at precedents.

Take, for example, a core case cited by judges in sexual assault cases. R vs. W.(D.) argues there are three steps that judges have to consider in evaluating testimony.

Many judges cite a portion of the W.(D.) verdict: “First, if I believe the evidence of the accused, obviously I must acquit; second, if I do not believe the testimony of the accused but am left in reasonable doubt by it, I must acquit; third, even if I am not left in doubt by the evidence of the accused, I must ask myself whether, on the basis of the evidence which I do accept, I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of the guilt of the accused.”

While it may be a regular feature of sexual assault verdicts, it’s interesting to point out that the verdict in the W.(D.) case was brought down in 1991 — almost 20 years ago.

Which brings us, strangely, to former Conservative MP Rona Ambrose and her attempt to bring in federal legislation to require provincial superior court judges to get training in how they handle sexual assault cases, including requirements that they clearly explain their reasoning.

The hope was that the bill would educate judges about myths and stereotypes that have marred decisions in past sexual assault cases. While the private member’s bill did make it through the House of Commons, it stalled in the Senate, and died on the order paper when the last federal election was called.

Now, though, the federal Liberals have brought the legislation back as a government bill — and Ambrose was there at the news conference with two Liberal cabinet ministers launching it.

“There are some issues as Justice Minister (David) Lametti said that really are above politics and issues that Canadians expect us to work on,” Ambrose said at the news conference.

“Supporting victims of sexual assault and improving our justice system and building confidence in our justice system is one of those issues. … This bill is really a small part of a puzzle that we need to continue working on to build that confidence in our justice system so more people come forward and report their sexual assault or sexual abuse.”

There are good reasons for precedents in law: they ensure fair and even treatment for those being punished.

But while today’s good decisions can be built on yesterday’s, there are also times when past decisions can be unwittingly marred by social bias that we would not accept today.

Bringing Ambrose’s judge education law back is a good decision.