The First Filed Trip - Provincial Court (19th Feb. 2008)

The impression of the courtI was exciting and nerves because it was the first time in my life (56 years) to visit the Provincial Court dealing with Criminal cases.

First of all, I am deeply impressed by its openness.

Courts are open to the public because “Justice must not only be done, it must be seem to be done”. (Chief Justice Hewert). On the way to the Court, I still had some doubts if I was really allowed to go into it. However, I did not have questioned and asked for any ID when passing though the security-check gate, which is similar as the one in airport. It was 10 minutes earlier to the registration time and I noticed that Court did open to the public because I saw that a beggar came in without problem. The washroom on the first floor then looked not so clean; some one left the remnant Sandwich on the counter-top.

We students from Main Street were advised that we could look at the glass window and entered the courtroom at the pause, and we were not allowed to talk about the case at hallway with any kind of languages, in case people waiting there would know something.

I am also deeply impressed by the dignified atmosphere in the courtroom. Judges sit at an elevated bench at the middle of the courtroom. A picture of the Royal coat of arms behind of the bench symbolizing the authority society has given judges-the lion represent power of law, and the unicorn represents the purity of law.

The Judge who received us student is Mr. Delati. He looked august and kind – the two features combined perfectly in his appearance and speeches. He said he was willing to answer the questions from students. When the Judge was asked about the difference between being a Judge and lawyer, he said that lawyer knew the evidence before trail, but judge listened two both adversarial opinions during the court.

Fortunately I I had a response from Judge Mr. Delati to my question.My question is that how it would effect Judge’s daily life as being a Judge. I thought that Judge must try very hard to get rid of the negative influence since he deals with the criminal cases and sees the dark side of society more than others. To my surprise, Judge’s reply is cheerful and positive. He said he was more tolerant towards the issue or people involved in his life, as he learnt from Court that very thing happened or every action that people took had its history; a good way of thinking, i.e. subjective opinion should include circumstance and every sides of fact.

Moreover, in this field trip I witnessed about “the accused remains innocent until his guilty approved”. The accused in red (from which I knew he was in custody) was sitting with his Lawyer(s). When the accused started to talk, the Sheriff immediately stood up behind of the accused, because one of Sheriff’s duties is to protect Judge.

Case No. One  - Drug abuse
R. v. Lochan
Rm. 307
Case about Drug treatment
15 Minutes

Before we students from Main Street visit the court, we were advised that we could look at the glass window and entered the courtroom at the pause. Also we were not allowed to talk about the case at hallway with any kind of languages, in case people waiting there would know something.

The judge in Rm. 307 was a Lady, who wore a red strap on her suit. When I entered the room, she was talking to the lawyer and Crown. But unfortunately I was not able to hear the content becuase after chemotherapy treatment following my cancer operation, I had permanent background noises shouting my hearing with different frequencies. Any one talk with that frequencies, or any one talks in a soft way, I am not able to catch the speech.

What I observed was that Court used a video to connect with another accused in Rm. 101. This technique was permitted in Court not long ago, around Jan. 2008.

Two things were surprising me most. One was that lawyer’s tone was not as cadence as the lawyers on TV shows. This lawyer (same as the lawyers in the other courts) did not have many gestures; he spoke in a quite flat way. They seemes not look two fighters, as they auger in a fiend way. All of them when talks only face to the Judge, the adversarial parties did argue. Another thing was that I did not expect that Judge talked so much. She frequently asked questions and looked like as discussing things with the two adversarial parties. In the TV shows, Judge just sat there and gave a final sentence.

Case No. Two  - Drug Plant
R. v. Ramos, Vabriel
Rm. 306
Sentence hearing for case No. 176996-1-T
1 hour and 15 minutes

Crown is giving proves that the accused was found to grow marijuana for 10000 plants. She read some criminal laws from a book and suggested to give the accused 24 months in Jail.

The accused hired two lawyers (he is very rich). The young lawyer spent half hour to approve that the accused was the first time involved in the crime and was a good student when he was in school. He submitted some School courses report to the Judge and beg for mercy sentence. He also used a precedent in 2000 that the term in prisons should be 6 months.

The Judge (to my surprise, not the Crown) pointed out that it was the 2nd time that the accused was involved in the drug case; moreover, the precedent in 2000 was not suitable in 2007 (when the accused was caught).

The old lawyer then spoke that though it was 2nd time that the accused broke the law, he behaved all right in prison.

Four of them talked a lot and the accused seemed not worry about his case at all. Judges looked frustrate because the accused had criminal record as a drugpusher.

The court had a break for 20 minutes, but in the later session, they still can not reach a decision. Finally Judge announced that he would give a consideration for both sides’ reasons and sentence on next week.

During the course, one visitor’s cell phone rang, Judge turned a stern look at the visitor.

I think the law in Canada to the drug criminal is too light. Even two years in prison is not severe enough to prevent the criminals. Retribution is necessary to keep a potential criminal away from committing a crime.  On the other hand, I understand that to keep one prisoner costs a lot of the taxpayer’s money. But why do not the prison set up some manufacture business to utilize the exiting labor- force? I would suggest that jails in Canada are managed like that and any prisoner who works hard can get a certain period of parole.

Case No. Three - Traffic
R. v. ? (I forgot to make a note)
Rm. 305
Trail
10 minutes

During I was there, the defendant lawyer was delivering a speech, claimed that the arresting was not legal. The accused said twice that he needed his lawyer, but the police still talked with him. Therefore, the confession at that time should be considered as invalid.

I still have difficult to understand this policy. As long as the confession was not forced by any torture from police, why should be declaim invalid? How about the accused does not need lawyer and willing to talk, and later this one regretted with his saying, could he change his confession? General speaking, I feel most rules of law in Canada benefit the one that break the law, and offer them more convenient. That is why some people have lost the morality and shame feelings.

Fortunately I I had a response from Judge Mr. Delati to my question.My question is that how it would effect Judge’s daily life as being a Judge. I thought that Judge must try very hard to get rid of the negative influence since he deals with the criminal cases and sees the dark side of society more than others. To my surprise, Judge’s reply is cheerful and positive. He said he was more tolerant towards the issue or people involved in his life, as he learnt from Court that very thing happened or every action that people took had its history; a good way of thinking, i.e. subjective opinion should include circumstance and every sides of fact.

Moreover, in this field trip I witnessed about “the accused remains innocent until his guilty approved”. The accused in red (from which I knew he was in custody) was sitting with his Lawyer(s). When the accused started to talk, the Sheriff immediately stood up behind of the accused, because one of Sheriff’s duties is to protect Judge.

Case No. One  - Drug abuse
R. v. Lochan
Rm. 307
Case about Drug treatment
15 Minutes

Before we students from Main Street visit the court, we were advised that we could look at the glass window and entered the courtroom at the pause. Also we were not allowed to talk about the case at hallway with any kind of languages, in case people waiting there would know something.

The judge in Rm. 307 was a Lady, who wore a red strap on her suit. When I entered the room, she was talking to the lawyer and Crown. But unfortunately I was not able to hear the content becuase after chemotherapy treatment following my cancer operation, I had permanent background noises shouting my hearing with different frequencies. Any one talk with that frequencies, or any one talks in a soft way, I am not able to catch the speech.

What I observed was that Court used a video to connect with another accused in Rm. 101. This technique was permitted in Court not long ago, around Jan. 2008.

Two things were surprising me most. One was that lawyer’s tone was not as cadence as the lawyers on TV shows. This lawyer (same as the lawyers in the other courts) did not have many gestures; he spoke in a quite flat way. They seemes not look two fighters, as they auger in a fiend way. All of them when talks only face to the Judge, the adversarial parties did argue. Another thing was that I did not expect that Judge talked so much. She frequently asked questions and looked like as discussing things with the two adversarial parties. In the TV shows, Judge just sat there and gave a final sentence.

Case No. Two  - Drug Plant
R. v. Ramos, Vabriel
Rm. 306
Sentence hearing for case No. 176996-1-T
1 hour and 15 minutes

Crown is giving proves that the accused was found to grow marijuana for 10000 plants. She read some criminal laws from a book and suggested to give the accused 24 months in Jail.

The accused hired two lawyers (he is very rich). The young lawyer spent half hour to approve that the accused was the first time involved in the crime and was a good student when he was in school. He submitted some School courses report to the Judge and beg for mercy sentence. He also used a precedent in 2000 that the term in prisons should be 6 months.

The Judge (to my surprise, not the Crown) pointed out that it was the 2nd time that the accused was involved in the drug case; moreover, the precedent in 2000 was not suitable in 2007 (when the accused was caught).

The old lawyer then spoke that though it was 2nd time that the accused broke the law, he behaved all right in prison.

Four of them talked a lot and the accused seemed not worry about his case at all. Judges looked frustrate because the accused had criminal record as a drugpusher.

The court had a break for 20 minutes, but in the later session, they still can not reach a decision. Finally Judge announced that he would give a consideration for both sides’ reasons and sentence on next week.

During the course, one visitor’s cell phone rang, Judge turned a stern look at the visitor.

I think the law in Canada to the drug criminal is too light. Even two years in prison is not severe enough to prevent the criminals. Retribution is necessary to keep a potential criminal away from committing a crime.  On the other hand, I understand that to keep one prisoner costs a lot of the taxpayer’s money. But why do not the prison set up some manufacture business to utilize the exiting labor- force? I would suggest that jails in Canada are managed like that and any prisoner who works hard can get a certain period of parole.

Case No. Three - Traffic
R. v. ? (I forgot to make a note)
Rm. 305
Trail
10 minutes

During I was there, the defendant lawyer was delivering a speech, claimed that the arresting was not legal. The accused said twice that he needed his lawyer, but the police still talked with him. Therefore, the confession at that time should be considered as invalid.

I still have difficult to understand this policy. As long as the confession was not forced by any torture from police, why should be declaim invalid? How about the accused does not need lawyer and willing to talk, and later this one regretted with his saying, could he change his confession? General speaking, I feel most rules of law in Canada benefit the one that break the law, and offer them more convenient. That is why some people have lost the morality and shame feelings.