A friend of mine accused of having violated Canadian immigration law a while back had participated in an adversarial hearing in which the judge had to rule on a mere balance of probabilities and she had difficulty proving her innocence of the charge against her due to the Minister's counsel resisting the presentation of various witnesses and withholding otehr proof.
The judge ruled in my friend's favour anyway, the Minister appealed, and again.
But it still got me thinking. What if she had the right to request an inquisitorial process instead? This would mean that she would have lost much control over her case, but so would the Minister's counser over hers. The judge would have had far more intrusive powers to call witnesses whether for or against her, so he could have called the witnesses himself. In a sense, it would be like a nuclear option. If the accused fears that the Minister's counsel might not show the judge everything and might resist the presentation of witnesses or other evidence (as it turned out, the Minister's counsel had presented some pictures only at the appeal hearing, though they too turned out to be in my friend's favour, the counsel counting on my friend to be in the pictures, but she was nowhere to be seen!), then the accused could ask for an inquisitorial hearing. If she knows she has nothing to hide, then an inquisitorial hearing makes both sides more of an open book with the judge having the power to dig out everything the police and CBSA have. in a sense, it forces both sides to lay all their cards on the table. Also, if a CBSA officer or a police officer knows that an accused of an immigration violation could opt for this nuclear option, that officer will be more cautious about frivolously making accusations if he knows that the judge could potentially pull all the dirt on him.
Your thoughts on this? My thought is if a cop knows that an accused could opt to give the judge that kind of power, the corrupt officers, this could keep officers more on their toes.
The judge ruled in my friend's favour anyway, the Minister appealed, and again.
But it still got me thinking. What if she had the right to request an inquisitorial process instead? This would mean that she would have lost much control over her case, but so would the Minister's counser over hers. The judge would have had far more intrusive powers to call witnesses whether for or against her, so he could have called the witnesses himself. In a sense, it would be like a nuclear option. If the accused fears that the Minister's counsel might not show the judge everything and might resist the presentation of witnesses or other evidence (as it turned out, the Minister's counsel had presented some pictures only at the appeal hearing, though they too turned out to be in my friend's favour, the counsel counting on my friend to be in the pictures, but she was nowhere to be seen!), then the accused could ask for an inquisitorial hearing. If she knows she has nothing to hide, then an inquisitorial hearing makes both sides more of an open book with the judge having the power to dig out everything the police and CBSA have. in a sense, it forces both sides to lay all their cards on the table. Also, if a CBSA officer or a police officer knows that an accused of an immigration violation could opt for this nuclear option, that officer will be more cautious about frivolously making accusations if he knows that the judge could potentially pull all the dirt on him.
Your thoughts on this? My thought is if a cop knows that an accused could opt to give the judge that kind of power, the corrupt officers, this could keep officers more on their toes.