Editorial
Wednesday, December 17, 1997
Judgments on the court

The federal government's latest attempt at reform of the justice system is motivated primarily by the overloaded courts of the South. It figures that doing away with some pre-trial hearings and jury trials will save millions of dollars, and it's probably right.

In the North, we haven't been plagued by the same problems to the same degree. Pre-trial hearings and juried trials for some of the relatively less serious crimes are not yet clogging the courts. But we have other problems that cry out for more attention and resources -- problems that could be addressed if money could be found.

The lack of adequately trained interpreters is currently in the public eye. Cases are being delayed and new trials ordered because of trouble with translation for victims, accused and jurors who don't have a good grasp of English.

Eliminating pre-trial hearings and juries for minor offences could serve two Northern purposes. First, it could free up money to pay for more interpreters and better training.

Second, fewer jury trials could ease the demand on those interpreters by avoiding at least one category of people who need to understand what's going on in court.

Ottawa is also proposing to allow non-lawyers to represent accused people in minor cases. While this isn't necessarily a bad idea, it poses its own set of challenges.

If the proposal comes to pass, those finding themselves before the court for lesser crimes will have the option of hiring a less-expensive paralegal or other adviser. Anyone faced with that decision -- saving money with someone who may not know the confusing legal system or spending a few more dollars for someone with better credentials -- should proceed very carefully before choosing the economical option.

Of course, if the alternative proves popular, lawyers might have to think about reducing their fees -- not an unwelcome thought. Unless you're a lawyer.


Cart before horse

It may be a little late to complain, but we can't help but wonder if a pedestrian bridge over Cameron Falls isn't a bit premature.

The hike down to the falls from the Ingraham Trail can be a challenging one, particularly in the late spring and early summer when ice still covers some of the steeper and rockier sections. Whether there's an easy way to cross the river is a moot point for those who can't manage the hike down to the river in the first place.

If the GNWT wants to make the Cameron River park more accessible, maybe it should consider further improvements to the hiking path. We can cross the proverbial bridge if and when we get to it.