Evidence on preliminary inquiries elusive

Not long ago, Justice Minister Jody WilsonRaybould seemed hesitant to embrace the idea of eliminating preliminary inquiries as a way to reduce court backlogs.

Now that the Liberal government wants to curtail their use, it appears she was won over by politics, rather than any new evidence it would help solve the problem.

“This bold reform will substantively contribute to the reduction of the delays in provinces,” Wilson-Raybould said last week after introducing a massive new bill she described as meant to bring about a fairer and more streamlined criminal justice system.

Preliminary inquiries are typically used to decide whether there is enough evidence to go to trial. Bill C-75 proposes limiting their use to cases where an adult offender is facing the possibility of life imprisonment, such as for murder or kidnapping — a change the Liberals insist will speed up the legal process.

The evidence to back up that claim remains unclear — and elusive.

Peter Sankoff, a law professor at the University of Alberta, said he does not feel too strongly about preliminary inquiries one way or the other.

“What I do have a strong attachment to is evidencebased policy and discussions or decisions that are made that make sense with the rationale for which they are initiated,” Sankoff said.

“It seems to me that if we are going to take it away, we should provide a convincing rationale for doing so.”

Ontario Attorney General Yasir Naqvi made waves last year when he called for an end to preliminary inquiries in all but the most serious of cases, such as murder and treason, to accelerate the wheels of justice. Manitoba and Saskatchewan soon joined the cause.

The need to move things along had taken on increased urgency in 2016 with the Supreme Court’s landmark Jordan decision.