The Beginning of the End

I can remember my first class at law school, Contracts, and thinking how far away the end seemed. I knew 3 years wasn't all that long and that I would be finishing much sooner than some of my colleagues but I couldn't begin to imagine the end ever actually arriving. And now it's here. This past week marked the beginning of the end of my law degree as my final semester got underway. I have 4 classes: Equity and Trusts, Evidence, Criminal Justice and Law Internship. The law internship is really a sort of research assignment that is supervised by a legal practitioner. My supervisor will be Matt O'Brien from ACT Legal Aid's criminal law division. I'm meeting with him in a few days to discuss a topic and then I'll get underway. Otherwise my classes seem pretty standard so far. I just hope that I pass all my courses on the first go, in other words, that I don't have to sit any supplementary exams because that will delay my graduation by a semester. My family is coming down for my expected graduation and I don't want to disappoint them.

The Australian rules football country championships were played in the Canberra region this week and I managed to officiate some games. There was a call for volunteer boundary umpires and I put my hand up and was appointed to 2 games in Queanbeyan. These are fairly high quality as they are state teams. There were only 2 17-minute halves which made the running load much lighter than otherwise; a typical game in the Canberra league is 20-25 minute quarters (depending on the grade). I went alright in the 1st game but as it progressed I could feel my ITB seizing up. The ITB, or iliotibial band, is a tendon which runs down the thigh and joins with another muscle at the knee. A few days ago I had had a pretty solid run and I had tweaked it a bit. The ITB is notoriously difficult to stretch and once irritated, it really hurts. I managed to get the 1st half of the 2nd game down before I couldn't run anymore. I was somewhat irritated that I couldn't finish off the game and it was only because of this knee thing. It was my first attempt at boundary umpiring and even though I only had to make 1 decision, I am told I was fairly impressive. I'm taking a week off training just to give my leg a rest and I'll see about further boundary umpiring afterwards. I still continue to goal umpire without issue.

An interesting piece of news that crossed my desk was the report that Helena Guergis has been cleared by the RCMP. Guergis, who was a junior minister in the Canadian government and had a rather famous, if somewhat overstated, rant in the Charlottetown airport, was removed from cabinet and caucus following "serious allegations". To date, Guergis has not been told these allegations and no one outside the PM's close circle seems to know either. With the RCMP investigation concluded, it made me think of my administrative law principles; the principles that govern when someone can seek judicial review of a government decision. Although I doubt Guergis would be able to seek judicial review, I think there was a complete failure of what is called natural justice (procedural fairness), which would ordinarily give someone the ability to contest the decision in court. In a famous Australian case (VEAL v MIMIA), the High Court held that whenever a person is accused of something, even if the reviewing body takes no notice of it, that person must be given a chance to respond to those allegations. In that case, the refugee applicant designated VEAL, was the subject of a letter to the refugee board which accused them of committing crimes against humanity or something like that. The letter asked that the writer's identity be kept secret and although the board said that the letter existed, they gave it no weight in their decision. Nevertheless, the High Court said that natural justice/procedural fairness required that the allegations (but not the identity of the author) be disclosed. I think Guergis' case falls squarely in this camp.

The Guergis Affair also made me think of historical precedents such as the Star Chamber and bills of attainder. The Star Chamber was an inquisitorial court whose meetings were secret. A person could be compelled to testify against themselves and secret decisions could be reached finding people guilty of sedition or treason. Bills of attainder were acts of Parliament that found someone guilty of treason without a trial per se. I think that Guergis' situation falls very close to both of these.

I watched the CBC's Peter Mansbridge interview with Guergis online. I didn't think it was a particularly great interview for her, but I don't think it harmed her and maybe helped her a bit. If nothing else, it served to underline the issues in her dismissal. While the allegations still remain undisclosed, from what I read online, there is a chorus to have them revealed. I think that they should be if for no other reason than that public money has now been expended on the RCMP investigation and the public should know why that money was spent. Of course, I also think the Guergis should be told the allegations anyway because it would be fair to do so. We'll have to see how this plays out over the coming weeks and especially at the next election.