The public should help oversee judges

There’s a well-known joke about juries. An accused burglar is asked whether or not he wants to face a jury of his peers. He responds, “No, sir, I don’t want to be judged by that gang of thieves.”

Yet many professionals, such as doctors and lawyers, are routinely judged by their peers — physicians’ colleges or law societies, for example (no, we’re not calling them thieves; it’s just a metaphor). But these disciplinary bodies blend their expert peers with citizens from other backgrounds. In Ontario, police go one step further: Their actions are overseen explicitly by civilian organizations, to avoid the perceived taint of officers investigating their own.

So what about the people who have remarkable powers to alter the lives of Canadians, for better or worse, by presiding over our courtrooms?

The investigations system for federally appointed judges is managed separately from government, in the spirit of judicial independence, by the Canadian Judicial Council. But the Department of Justice has asked for feedback from the public on how it ought to oversee these judges, which could lead to changes to the Judges Act. The rather quiet consultation finished Wednesday with some provinces, a handful of legal groups and six individuals weighing in on the topic.

One legal ethics group is urging that the investigations involve more regular Canadians. Currently, the only point in the investigation of these judges in which a layperson is involved is on a committee that could later prompt an inquiry; that inquiry would be conducted by judges and lawyers.

This discussion comes as the judicial council is set to investigate comments by Robin Camp, an Alberta justice who asked an alleged rape victim: “Why couldn’t you just keep your knees together?”

Each year, the judicial council receives roughly 200 complaints, most dealt with in 90 days. Many are beyond what can be investigated; crankiness about a ruling is not grounds for an investigation, for example. But ones that are serious can involve some offence to public mores.

That’s one reason to involve laypeople, who would bring a different perspective than lawyers or judges. It would help peel back the veil on an insular group: As the Canadian Association for Legal Ethics argues, the public’s involvement has a bolstering effect on public confidence in the judicial system.

And why shouldn’t more laypeople be involved? After all, if we trust Canadians enough to put them on a jury that could send someone to prison for decades, we can easily trust them to evaluate a judge’s conduct.