Canadian top court sets tighter rules for corruption prosecutions
Dr. Kardasz -
Read the following report and consider:
1. Which typology of unethical behavior was exhibited by the accused?
2. Which decision making process might have prevented the accused from making the wrong decision?
Typologies of unethical behavior - http://kardasz.org/CorruptionTypologies.html
Decision making processes - http://kardasz.org/Decision_Making_Tools.html
---------------------------------------------------------
Canadian top court sets tighter rules for corruption prosecutions
Jim Brown, Canadian Press, Friday, July 14, 2006
OTTAWA (CP) - The Supreme Court of Canada, saying there's a difference between being unethical and being a criminal, has tightened the legal rules to make it tougher to convict politicians and public servants of breach of trust.
In a 7-0 ruling Thursday, the court overturned a previous guilty verdict against Denis Boulanger, the former police chief of Varennes, Que. He was charged after asking a subordinate to write a traffic accident report that helped clear the chief's daughter of blame for insurance purposes.
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, writing for the court, said there's no doubt the breach-of-trust law reflects an "ancient and important" principle - that public officials have a duty to use their offices for public good, not private benefit. "This duty lies at the heart of good governance. It is essential to retain the confidence of the public in those who exercise power." But that doesn't mean office holders are guilty of a crime every time they commit a transgression. "Perfection has never been the standard for criminal culpability in this domain."
The judgment marks the first time the Supreme Court has laid out detailed guidelines on breach of trust since the offence was written into the Criminal Code in the 1890s. The law is worded broadly enough to cover virtually every public servant and politician in the country, from the local dog catcher to the prime minister. But it has been interpreted by different judges in different ways for more than a century.
McLachlin said Boulanger was in a conflict of interest, may have violated the code of ethics for Quebec police officers, and could be subject to disciplinary proceedings. But the legal test for a criminal conviction should set the bar higher.
To be found guilty of breach of trust, a public office holder must not only show a "marked departure"from acceptable standards of conduct, but also act with a conscious intent that smacks of "dishonesty, corruption, partiality (or) oppression."
In Boulanger's case, there was no evidence the police traffic report was inaccurate, fraudulent or misleading, even though it was clearly beneficial to the chief and his daughter. The chief's actions weren't serious enough, or his intent clear enough, to support a criminal conviction, said McLachlin.
She took pains to point out that breach of trust isn't the only sanction available to guard against official misconduct. There are a "range of regulations, guidelines and codes o ethics to which officials are subject, many of which provide for serious disciplinary sanctions." There is also a Criminal Code prohibition of influence peddling.
The most common use of that provision has been in cases of alleged bribery or other payoffs for the awarding of government contracts. Convictions have been notoriously hard to obtain, however, because of strict evidentiary rules. Politicians and public servants can also be charged with the same criminal offences that apply to everybody else, such as fraud or theft.
A celebrated recent example was Chuck Guite, the bureaucrat who ran the federal sponsorship program. He was convicted of fraud in connection with a number of contracts.
The Canadian Press 2006, CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.
Retrieved July 14, 2006 from http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=11a196a5-2daf-4d9f-86f5-298ae1a8331d&k=19558