Will Senator Mike Duffy’s trial be reconvened as
scheduled on Aug. 12 given its potential influence on the federal election
presently underway, especially with the anticipated testimony of its star
witness, Mr. Nigel Wright, opening the second phase of the trial?
There are a few precedents for such postponement, the
latest being the adjournment, ordered by Justice France Charbonneau at the
outset of the 2014 Quebec provincial election, of the Commission of Inquiry on the Awarding and Management of Public Contracts
in the Construction Industry. In a statement issued on March 5 of that year,
the inquiry reasoned, “Elections are the basis of democracy
and the commission does not wish to influence voters one way or another.”
Although not a trial, the Commission similarly
received sworn testimony from many key witnesses that could have affected the outcome of the election.
There will be enormous pressure on presiding Ontario
Court Justice Charles Vaillancourt to prolong the present recess that began
June 18 or to hastily adjourn anew once the trial resumes, due to the impact on
voting intentions that such a political trial might have.
The question that will then be on everyone’s mind if
it is indeed rescheduled is whether, anticipating such an adjournment, the
Harper government took this into account when deciding to kick off an extended
election ten days before the trial was to restart.
The same cannot be said however of Senator Patrick
Brazeau’s trial originally set to resume September 15 & 16, with final arguments
slated for Oct. 16, on assault and sexual assault charges, since that trial
would have fallen with the minimum 37-day campaign.
If shifted later, the Duffy trial would likely resume
Nov. 18 to Dec. 18 as presently scheduled. Note that the trials of Brazeau and
Senator Mac Harb on their own fraud and breach of trust charges stemming from
their Senate expenses are to open next spring.
Interest in the trial will not be diverted by the
election itself if it restarts next Wednesday as planned, as some have suggested,
but rather heightened given its likely effect on the campaign, particularly if
new allegations implicating the prime minister and his office or party are
revealed.
Although an adjournment request is not obligatory, if
there is one it is likely to come from the Crown prosecutor’s side and not Mr.
Duffy’s since proceedings during the election might encourage an early
acquittal or at least an acceptable plea bargain that would see a number of the
31 charges against Mr. Duffy dropped and penalties reduced. Expect Duffy’s
lawyer to strenuously object to any delay.
Given the Canadian electorate’s distaste for
corruption, these particular senators and much of the Senate at this time,
voters will severely judge both adjournment and a watered-down plea, particularly
if the Prime Minister’s tactics have thwarted their desire for swift justice.
However Justice Vaillancourt’s best option might very
well be rescheduling as opposed to electoral interference and denial of
justice.
