Again, the moral objectionists, boo-hoo bleaters all, have come out full of rage over the Gurmant Grewal tapes. To briefly review, Tim talked to GG and GG taped it without telling Tim. That is OK. But what they talked about? Now the RCMP is listening to the tapes. Moral ragers say “HANG TIM” and “BRING DOWN THE GOVERNMENT!”… though admittedly they say that every day.
What might the RCMP do? Let’s look at some law and consider how it works. The RCMP have to read the Criminal Code and have to find a section under which to review the impugned activity. For someone to be charged, their acts and bits of thoughts must fall into line with all elements of an offence as set out in the section. [Other bits of thought like motive are not so much considered.] Here then are a couple is the section which would be reviewed in this situation:
119. (1) Every one who:
(a) being the holder of a judicial office, or being a member of Parliament or of the legislature of a province, corruptly
(i) accepts or obtains,
(ii) agrees to accept, or
(iii) attempts to obtain,any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment for himself or another person in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by him in his official capacity, or
(b) gives or offers, corruptly, to a person mentioned in paragraph (a) any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by him in his official capacity for himself or another person,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
(2) No proceedings against a person who holds a judicial office shall be instituted under this section without the consent in writing of the Attorney General of Canada.
Chatting in some contexts then could be bad for both chatters. And, as you can see, unlike the sections relating for public officials at s.124 and s.125 , where the crime is about the generic concept of giving or getting “reward”, here in 119 it is about giving or getting only the listed things and one of those listed – but one of those things is an “office”. [I still think “reward” is in fact a very interesting word in these tapes as it is used, perhaps unfortunately – some folks might wish “shoe” or “grannies old soup” were used instead.] So, if two folk sit around thinking about how “offices” might be transacted that is maybe possibly bad. Again with the lists, section 118 defines “office” so that it includes
(a) an office or appointment under the government,
(b) a civil or military commission, and
(c) a position or an employment in a public department
Which offices does this include? Note also that it is important to see a separate element in the word “corruptly” – that word alone is the fall back for the defence as the Crown would have to prove some sort of particular wicked intent. I wonder if there is a case out there on the meaning of “corruptly” by a Parliamentarian? Note also that the Federal Attorney General has to agree under 119(2). Hmmm – interestink. We need not go beyond that for educational purposes the noo.
But wait. Consider if one side was setting the other up without an intention to find themselves in that hot water. Consider this Criminal Code provision of general application:
22. (1) Where a person counsels another person to be a party to an offence and that other person is afterwards a party to that offence, the person who counselled is a party to that offence, notwithstanding that the offence was committed in a way different from that which was counselled.
(2) Every one who counsels another person to be a party to an offence is a party to every offence that the other commits in consequence of the counselling that the person who counselled knew or ought to have known was likely to be committed in consequence of the counselling.
It would appear to me that if one was trying to get another to do a wrong – whatever the first person’s motives – that too is a crime. You cannot in effect chat someone up into a crime – taking advantage of their corruptability – and to do so without being held accountable for that inducement. Sensible. We do not want that sort of thing going on, either. So if you are in on the deal – bad. If you are not in on the deal but make someone else commit to the deal – also bad. Depending on the facts. Which only the RCMP know about – except for a few of others. We just have the transcripts or maybe 30% of them. I am sure lil’ Stevie told GG all this.
I have to go make supper. I’ll plug in more links later. Dinner done and good. But still comments on potential defences to these sections might be in order.