The Prosecutor and my lawyer presented their arguments to the Court.
The email from Tony Clement’s office indicates that they are introducing legislation this fall to change the Statistics Act to make the census long form voluntary but also mandatory. (Don’t ask!!)
I don’t think that will change the course of my trial; it has become a Charter of Rights question, proceeding solely on the question of whether the long form is constitutional.
It is no longer about whether or not I am guilty as charged (failure to fill in a census form). Or so I see it.
My cousin asked how things went in court:
The short answer: Well – – it ain’t over yet and maybe not for a long while yet.
The judge’s decision is due December 15th (UPDATE: got moved to January 13th, 2011). But that might only be step 1 ?
As I understand, Judge Whelan and Steve (lawyer) are treating it like a test case that will be appealed, whatever the ruling is. So the Judge is taking her time, being careful. The decision may affect her legal reputation.
In Court it was kind of hard to figure out what was going on:
The prosecutor did not argue that my charter right to privacy of personal information should be extinguished because the census long form is a greater value to all of Canada than my individual right to privacy (he didn’t argue what I call the “section 1 override clause”). His failure to make that argument was a surprise to my lawyer and to me; most likely also to the Judge. Especially because in the laying out of evidence (in January) the prosecutor and StatsCan witness went to great lengths to cover all the benefits of the work done by StatsCan for Canadians – preparing the ground that would permit them to make the argument.
A little speculation from a person who works in legal circles: the prosecutor may have been operating under direction from further up the command chain. By dropping the section 1 override argument, if the Judge’s ruling is appealed, the appeal will be solely on the basis of whether the census long form is unconstitutional because it infringes on the charter right to privacy of a biographical core of personal information which individuals in a free and democratic society would wish to … protect from dissemination to the state.
Politically, in the wake of the vocal opposition to making the long form voluntary, it would be an astute move to have a clear and pointed court ruling on the census long form. “The Courts made me do it.”
Aside from all that, it went well, I thought. The lawyer is excellent – – he knows privacy rights and the related law very well. And has the gift of clarity and succinctness. Which is helpful to the Judge. (Not like having me in Court representing myself, as in the beginning!!)
I do not allow myself to speculate as to when the legal proceedings will be wrapped up. If I am found guilty the case will be appealed. If I am found innocent, the speculation is that the decision will be appealed. There is a substantial charter-of-rights issue. The thinking goes: the decision of a Provincial Court Judge doesn’t have sufficient weight. The Justice system would want a superior Court ruling on the question. – – As I say, it’s not about my guilt or innocence.
Thank goodness I stated the expectation to the Judge, at the outset, that my legal costs will be reimbursed. I told her that it is not me, but the Government, that is operating outside the law. Her ruling on reimbursement of costs will come out with her decision on the legal issue.
Who knows when it might all be over?