A judicial affair

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 28/07/2012 (5049 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

The Lori Douglas inquiry has been an unpleasant experience for everyone involved, no more than for Justice Douglas herself and her husband, Jack King, but the panel judges made the right decision in deciding to keep going and dig deeper into the evidence.

It was alleged that the panel’s lawyer, George Macintosh, has been too aggressive in his questioning, but there is no evidence to suggest his tone reflects the private views of the three well-respected judges hearing the case.

The inquiry itself very nearly never took place, and the early evidence didn’t encourage confidence that it was, indeed, necessary, focused, as it was, on the prurient, sordid details.

On Friday, however, the importance of the case became clearer when Manitoba Appeal Court Judge Martin Freedman testified he recommended Douglas be appointed to the bench in 2005, even though he was aware of the scandal involving nude photos. He was also aware that her application for a judicial appointment had earlier been turned down because another senior judge believed the photos put her at risk for blackmail.

The opposition to her appointment was only withdrawn when Justice Douglas assured him the photos had been destroyed.

In other words, the Judicial Advisory Council, of which Judge Freedman was a member, appears to have decided it was safe to make her a judge because it believed the incriminating evidence had been destroyed and no one would find out that she might not be appropriate for the bench.

This is evidence worth exploring in depth, since it could raise questions about the judgment of the judiciary and of Justice Douglas, too.