Special judicial panels for terror cases a bad idea, Air India inquiry told

Ottawa: Appointing special three-judge panels to oversee high-profile terrorist cases could raise the spectre of politically motivated "show trials" in Canada, the Air India inquiry has been told.
Bruce MacFarlane, a University of Manitoba law professor, acknowledged Tuesday that the present court system has trouble coping with lengthy and complex mega-trials of terror suspects.
But he cautioned against radical reforms such as adopting a three-judge system to replace the traditional single jurist. Such a drastic move could undermine the credibility of the whole process, he told the inquiry headed by former Supreme Court justice John Major.
"I don't think we should place Canadians in a position of saying in essence: 'Oh, this is going to be a lengthy terrorist trial, we have special courts for that.' I think that raises huge legitimacy issues, would not serve Canada well and would lead to criticism based on political agendas, show trials and arguments of that sort."
The use of multi-judge panels to preside at terrorist prosecutions is a key reform suggested by the families of victims of the 1985 Air India bombing that took 329 lives.
They were outraged by the 2005 acquittal of Ripudaman Singh Malik and Ajaib Singh Bagri, two of the men accused of the attack, following a 19-month trial in Vancouver that was heard by one judge without a jury.
Major has been directed, in the terms of reference handed to him by the Conservative government, to consider three-judge panels as a possible alternative in future cases.
20/11/07 The Canadian Press

To Read the News in full at Source, Click the Headline

Categories: Air India - International Nov 2007, Foreign Nov 2007, Safety Nov 2007