A A

Judges don’t get to talk in public much.

Often, if they comment at all, it’s after their retirement.

Russell Wangersky

They don’t get to come out and publicly defend their verdicts, even if they’re slammed online for their decisions in high-profile sexual assault cases.

They are derided as idiots or old-fashioned or tools of the patriarchy for working within the existing rules of the justice system — a system that’s admittedly flawed, particularly for cases involving sexual assault, but for which a better system has neither been offered up nor put in place.

Those same judges are, however, occasionally masters at what users of the social media platform Twitter call a subtweet.

A subtweet, for anyone who doesn’t know, is a quiet dig at someone who isn’t even mentioned in the comment.

For those who complain about the pitfalls of due process, Corner Brook provincial court Judge Wayne Gorman has just offered up a 3,200-word subtweet in the form of a verdict in an assault case. What he’s done is explained succinctly how he got from A to B — or in this case, from testimony to acquittal.

And, for those who like to rage at the legal system without taking the time to understand how it works, it should be required reading.

“(David Christopher) Chafe and JP were involved in a relationship. On some occasions JP stayed overnight at Mr. Chafe’s residence. Mr. Chafe and JP argued a lot. The relationship ended on August 18, 2017. JP alleges that Mr. Chafe assaulted her on that date. Mr. Chafe alleges that JP assaulted him on that date. The only witnesses to what occurred were Mr. Chafe and JP. Mr. Chafe was charged with the offence of assault. … He pleaded not guilty and a trial was held.

“These types of cases can cause considerable controversy, though they should not. They, as all criminal cases, are governed by what has been described as the ‘golden thread’ which has wound its way through ‘the web of the English Criminal Law.’ … That is, the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

And, for those who like to rage at the legal system without taking the time to understand how it works, it should be required reading.

“The presumption of innocence is of fundamental importance in a democracy. The requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is our legal system’s primary method of preventing wrongful convictions. Though it recognizes that guilty people will be acquitted, we have long accepted the societal value in a system which allows this to occur in order to attempt to ensure that the innocent are not convicted. This is a difficult premise to accept in specific cases, but one that should be cherished when our legal system is evaluated in its overall context.

“The sole issue I must decide in this case is whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Chafe assaulted JP. It is important to understand that it is never the role of a trial judge to decide exactly what occurred. In many cases this would be impossible. The role of a trial judge is to ensure that no accused person is convicted unless his or her guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. To expect less, would fundamentally alter the nature of our democracy and the role of an independent judiciary.

“I have concluded that the Crown has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Chafe committed the offence with which he is charged. This does not mean that I have found JP to be untruthful. What it means is that when I consider the evidence in its totality that evidence is not sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Chafe committed the offence with which he is charged. I found JP to be a more reliable witness than Mr. Chafe. Acquitting him might seem to be an incongruous result, but only if you ignore the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. As will be seen, a criminal trial must never become solely a question of which witness a trial judge prefers. To adopt such an approach would constitute a repeal of the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof.

“I am left with two apparently credible witnesses. I am unable to reject the essence of Mr. Chafe’s evidence for any articulable reason. Since I am unable to reject Mr. Chafe’s denial of having assaulted JP, this must lead to an acquittal being entered …”

The crux?

Take your eyes off specific cases, and remember the system as a whole — or Judge Gorman might just be subtweeting you.

Recent columns by this author

Russell Wangersky: What's good for you isn’t always good

Russell Wangersky: Let's hope this bill passes amicably

Russell Wangersky’s column appears in 39 SaltWire newspapers and websites in Atlantic Canada. He can be reached at russell.wangersky@thetelegram.com — Twitter: @wangersky.