Ontario plans to allow trials without police having to be present, which is a bit like having a wedding without the bride.
A proposed law being pushed through the legislature by the Liberal government would permit police to give evidence by phone or video.
So far it has sparked relatively little protest, but if residents were fully informed of the dangers, they would be marching in the streets.
The aim is to reduce time police spend in courts and free them to fight crime and congestion, but it also would deprive accused persons of rights.
The proposed law would allow witnesses ? and it stresses it means police ? to give evidence by ?video conference, audio conference, telephone
conference or other electronic means? in courts hearing alleged violations of provincial laws.
It is difficult to conceive the province would permit police to testify by phone, because it would deprive a defendant or judge totally of seeing physical
signs witnesses often show, particularly when being cross-examined, that can help determine guilt or innocence.
These include a witness?s body language, whether he or she is willing to look others in the eye or shows indications of being ill at ease,
uncomfortable or evasive.
If an officer testifies on video, defendants and judges will see an image, but it will not be as clear as if the witness was in court and tell-tale signs may not be as easy to see.
An officer who is not in court cannot be required to produce as readily his notebook or other documents that may weaken his testimony.
A defendant or judge would have difficulty seeing if someone at the other end prompts an officer by signs and gestures, as over-enthusiastic officers have been caught doing in some court hearings.
The law also would create two classes of witnesses, those who can testify by video and those who cannot and defendants may feel they are inferior when all witnesses should be treated equally.
Police will not be allowed to testify by phone or video in charges laid under the Criminal Code, which is under federal jurisdiction and generally covers more serious offences.
Some may belittle the provincial offences on which police will be allowed to testify without being in court as minor ? the government has called them ?routine.?
But they include traffic, workplace safety and environmental protection laws and those convicted can be fined, lose driving licences which may cost them their jobs, have their auto insurance premiums tripled and even be jailed, so they are important to those involved.
One reason the public does not know much about the issue is the government has not talked much about it. Attorney General Michael Bryant said the justice system has to use the best available technology to avoid police officers? time being wasted, but has not mentioned potential drawbacks.
His plan to enable police to avoid court also is buried in less than two pages of a 176-page bill that covers many other issues and it almost takes a private detective to find it.
The only vigorous attack on it so far has come from New Democrat Peter Kormos. Kosmos, a lawyer who often gets quickest to the kernel of legal matters, said the province will take away the ability of accused persons to mount a full defence.
The Progressive Conservatives also have said it breaches the right to cross-examine and they will question it in detail once the debate on it gets fully under way.
Some may contend police normally are fair and accurate so there is not much to worry about, but while most are honest, a small proportion have been convicted over the years of committing offences from murder to fabricating evidence and may not shy from falsifying a speeding ticket.
Because government does not fund them enough, police also are pressed these days to work longer and become stressed and common sense says
they will make errors, so people need trials that are fair and full.
