The murder trial of Michael Rafferty represented the adversarial system operating with great distinction. All of the parties involved in the case including the judge, jury, defence counsel and the prosecutor performed their tasks in the courtroom admirably.
An appeal of the guilty verdicts is unlikely to succeed. The prosecution's case was overwhelming and Dirk Derstine, on behalf of his client, met the daunting challenge of probing and testing every aspect of the Crown's case.
The judge controlled the process with impeccable fairness. The jury appeared to reach its verdict on a probing review of the evidence rather than being swayed by the emotional burden of a child murder case.
The trial judge, Thomas Heeney, however, was severely criticized for keeping disturbing evidence from the jury. The decision was worthy of robust debate but some of the commentary was vitriolic and undeserved. In a series of letters published in the National Post, the justice system was described as having ''gone mad.''
One writer described the judicial system as seeming ''to be run by a bunch of weak, wrong-headed judges and lawyers who wield too much power and don't really believe in the jurors' intelligence to decide right from wrong.'' Another writer maintained that "legal games have replaced the delivery of real justice.'' One writer referred to the trial judge as the head of a clueless group of academics sitting on the bench. Such uninformed type of criticism diminishes respect for the administration of justice.
The Charter doesn't engage judges in legal games. It requires judges to decide on possible breaches of guaranteed constitutional rights and the remedy that may result from the breach. I have never encountered a trial judge in my legal career with an academic background. They are a group of former defence counsel and prosecutors with vast experience in the trial courts. Judges aren't weak or wrong-headed either. They certainly make mistakes and appellate courts exist to correct them when it is appropriate.
Contrary to the assertion that the Rafferty trial exemplified a justice system gone mad, quite the opposite is true. The trial was a victory for true justice and a vindication of the Charter values that protect a defendant's right to a fair trial. Michael Rafferty, in the most horrific case imaginable involving the kidnapping, rape and brutal murder of a child, received a fair trial.
The prosecutors took over two months to methodically present their evidence in the case being strictly bound by the rules of evidence and procedure. In the end a true and just verdict was reached by the jury. Michael Rafferty will spend the rest of his life in a penitentiary. Justice was properly served in the case.
Listen to Steven's new radio show, Closing Argument, every Sunday afternoon at 4:00ET on NewsTalk 1010. You can also follow him on Twitter at @LegalAnalyst
