Law

 When I was a teen-ager, criminal law was a fascination.

Our gang used to argue about what constituted a conspiracy or who had the “last clear chance.” And later, as a reporter, such men as Arthur Maloney, Joe Sedgewick and Charlie Dubin were newspaper heroes with their cases – and private lives-- followed week after week.

But gradually, with the passing years, I grew uneasy about criminal law. Fewer young graduates wanted any part of it, corporate law paid a whole lot more. Then the courts were asked more and more often to fashion legislation that properly belonged to Parliament.

But most distressing of all, any appearence in a criminal court became outrageously expensive. So costly indeed that middle-class Canadians simply could not afford a law suit. The rich were alright and the poor were subsidized. But the middle either stayed away if they could or tried to conduct their case themselves. And the cases dragged on for months, even years.

Rather then abandoning legal remedies altogether – which more and more victims have done – one useful solution has been proposed. Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin has suggested that plaintiffs conduct their own cases, but with the paid guidance of a lawyer. This would seem to be an idea worth debating. It would certainly be cheaper and perhaps just as judicially effective.

We can't legislate intelligence or common sense into people, but we can at least try to deal with the one certainty in the law: the expense.

Ends