Why prosecutors pursued Sudbury bribery charges, despite weak case

After a judge absolutely shredded the prosecution's lack of evidence in the bribery trial of two top Ontario Liberals, questions arelingering about why the case was pursued.

Premier Kathleen Wynne's former deputy chief of staff, Pat Sorbara, and a Liberal organizer in Sudbury, Gerry LougheedJr., were cleared of all charges, before the defence calledany witnesses.

"Nothing that occurred ... could, would or should be characterized as bribery," declared Justice Howard Borenstein, tossing the case in what's called a "directed verdict"of not guilty on all counts.

• Defence calls Sudbury byelection case a 'waste of money'
• Judge declares two Liberals not guilty on bribery charges

Veterandefence lawyerBrianGreenspan, who representedSorbara, called the judge's ruling a"total demonstration that these charges ought never have been brought."Greenspan told reporters in Sudbury he's seen only a handful of directed verdicts in his 44-year career. "They occur when prosecutions ought not to have been brought at the outset."

Lougheed's lawyer Michael Lacy slammed what he called a "misguided decision by the Crown to carry through with the prosecution" and saidthe verdict"raises questions about why they prosecuted this matter to begin with."

So, given the case wasso weak a judge dismissed it, why did the Crown pursue it? Lacy offered his own answer.

"There was a lot of political pressure," he said. "Sometimes that happens, unfortunately, when politics get in the way of making decisions about charging, making decisions about prosecuting."

Media commentators are also criticizingthe prosecution as a "waste of time" and a "desultory shambles of a case."

But it's possible that the prosecutors felt they had to pursue the case to the fullest possible extent to avoid even the slightest whiff of public perception that they were "going easy" onthe two Ontario Liberals.

Given all the publicity about the bribery allegations, in a case involving one of the premier's closest political advisers, one can imagine there might have been a public outcry hadthe Crown had dropped the charges before they even got to a judge.

In any prosecution, the Crown must make an objective, impartial analysis of the evidence to decide if a case should goahead. The keytest for proceedingis whether there is a "reasonable prospect of conviction." This is a judgment call.

Lawyerswho know the system suggest that in certain high-profile cases, it may be rather difficult for the Crown to make that judgment call without being influencedby public pressure.

"I am sure, absolutely, that some concerns about public perception and the optics in the public realm played into their assessment," said Joseph Neuberger, a criminal defence lawyer in Toronto

Neuberger said Crown attorneys will sometimes decide it's better to pursue a weak case and end up with the judge issuing an acquittal, rather than dropping the charges and potentially facing criticism for letting off the accused.

"There`s an informal legal principle that all lawyersCrown and defenceknow called, 'Let the judge decide,'" said Alan Gold, a criminal defence lawyerin Toronto. "Whether that's your explanation or not is pure speculation."

Gold said there may be good justifications for allowing a weak case to go all the way to court. "The public will respect a decision by a judge; they'll feel a decision by a judge is fairer than a decision by a Crown prosecutor," he said.

The questions swirling about the handling of the Sudbury case this week even prompted the federal Crown to issue a statement defending its decision to prosecute, insisting it is immune from outside pressure.

"The Public Prosecution Service of Canada is an independent and non-partisan prosecution authority, responsible for prosecuting offences in a manner that is free of any improper influence and that respects the public interest," said the statement.

The federal Crown prosecuted the case, as the provincial Attorney General's office stepped aside because of its connectionstoOntariogovernment officials.

The Crown's pursuit of this case no doubt put Sorbara and Lougheed through an awful personal experience, with charges hanging over their heads, their reputations sullied by the accusations. That ought to be repaired by thejudge's sweeping rejection of the Crown's case, what Greenspan calls"a total vindication, a total exoneration."

After the verdicts, the Ontario PCs stopped airing theirattack adagainst Wynne that mentioned the bribery trial, said party leader Patrick Brown.

Justice not only needs to be done, it needs to beseen to be done. Perhaps it's best for people's faith in the system that such a highly politically charged case actually went all the way to trial, so that an independent judge could weigh in with a decision that puts the whole controversy to rest.

But politically speaking, the controversymay linger in the minds of voters.

In a poll conducted by Forum Research after the acquittals, 39 per cent of respondents said what theyhad heard or seen about the bribery case made them less likely to vote Liberal in the next election.

"The Ontario Liberals could not have asked for a better outcome from the Sudbury trial, but what's clear from the data is that, overall, the result doesn't matter much," said Lorne Bozinoff, presdient of Forum Research . "The damage to the Liberals' brand may already be done."