Access to justice
Introduction
Access to justice is among the major principles of the rule of law. Without justice, human beings are unable to have their voices heard, challenge discrimination, or to exercise their rights. Declarations of the High-level Meeting on the Rule of Law calls for the right of equal access to justice for all even the members from vulnerable and minority groups. It is the role of every government to provide citizens with fair, effective, transparent, accountable, and non-discriminatory services that promote access to justice for all. Countries, through their judicial systems, should ensure that the delivery of justice is always non-discriminatory and impartial. For instance, in Canada, access to criminal justice is characterized by the implementation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. The Charter was part of the new Constitution Act of 1982. According to the Canadian Bar Association, access to justice refers to the ability of every Canadian, mainly the low and middle-class families to attain the legal information or help they need.
Contentious issue
Access to justice is among the major pressing issues in most of contemporary societies. Different researchers have even indicated that it is currently the main focus of almost all stakeholders within the legal community such as regulators, governments, researchers, bar associations as well as educators. Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, different rights and freedoms are protected, including the right to equality and freedom of expression. Additionally, the Charter under the Legal Rights maintains that every person has the right to life, liberty, and security of the individual. Such rights should never be deprived except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
Moreover, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms under the Equality Rights maintains that every person is equal under and before the law. This means that all Canadians, whether adults or adolescents has the right to equal benefit and protection by the law without any discrimination based on ethnic origin, race, religion, color, age or sex.
There have been numerous debates on whether adolescents should be treated the same way as adults after committing a crime. Different researchers and scholars have tried to explain whether or not rules about access to justice should apply to adolescents as they do to adults. However, it is worth noting that being an adolescent does not guarantee one to commit crimes hoping that the judge will understand and have mercy. Subsection (1) of the Equality Rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not preclude any program, law or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged groups or individuals. Such groups include the one disadvantaged because of religion, race, age, ethnic origin, or age.
In Canada, the rights of young people within the criminal justice system are regulated by the Canadian Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA). The law is applicable to youth between the ages of 12 and 17. According to the Canadian law, it is only a child under the age of 12 that cannot be charged with a crime. This means that after committing the crime, the 15 years old suspect ought to have been subjected to the same justice accorded to adults
Judicial Consideration
Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in R.V Mills, 2019 SCC 22 (Mills). The R. V. Mills case started in 2012 when a law enforcement agent created a fake Hotmail and Facebook accounts pretending to be Leann, a fourteen-year-old girl. Mr. Mills, a 32-year-old adult, contacted Lean and lied that he was 23 years old. The two were in communication for over two months, where Mills sent Leann several emails and messages, including a photo of his penis. Using a certain software, the police were able to take screenshots of the whole communication. After sometimes, Mr. Mills requested to meet Leann in a public park where he was arrested and charged with child luring. This crime involves communicating with an underage person online or using any other channel like a cellphone with the aim of taking advantage of them sexually. The whole case was all about whether or not it was a search and seizure within the provisions of section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for the police to develop fake online identities and communicate with the accused without judicial authorization. Section 8 offers protection to every Canadian against unreasonable search and seizure.
Ruling and references
Mr. Mills was found guilty by the trial judges. In this case, the court was trying to consider whether adults have reasonable expectations of privacy in their internet messages to an unknown child. During the court proceedings, the SCC provided four concurring opinions. The four opinions were in consensus that the evidence provided should not be excluded. However, each of the four judges had different reasons. Justice Abella, Brown, and Gascon argued that the accused did not have any reasonable expectations of privacy in his messages. The three continued to indicate that the messages could not be termed as private communication under the meanings of s. 184.2 of the Criminal Code. Justice Karakatsani also found no reasonable expectations of privacy in the messages. However, she was quick to indicate that there exists no search and seizure where a suspect is communicating in writing with an undercover police officer. She supported her arguments with two reasons. First, she indicated that there was no reasonable expectation that the messages would be kept private from the intended recipient. Secondly, she claimed that such type of sting could never be termed as a perch or seizure since the officers received only what was intentionally sent to them. The officers never interfered or surreptitiously recorded a private conversation. They only participated in one. Justice Martin was the only panel member to support the idea that the accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy during the conversation and that the police infringed on the accused rights under section 8 charter.
Analysis
I concur with the majority in this case, who indicated that Mr. Mills lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy. Additionally, I agree with Justice Abella, Brown, and Gascon, who insisted that the evidence presented before the case was applicable. By so doing, the three judges reminded Canadians that everybody, whether young or old has the right to equal justice. After being found guilty and charged, the judicial system re-assured Canadians that they are protected by the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Freedoms and Rights. However, critics of this ruling maintain that the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) should have excluded the evidence presented against the accused because the police violated the provisions of Section 8 charter. The Supreme Court should have referred to various cases such as that of R V Duarte, (1990) 1 SCR 30, where the court ruled that warrantless electronic State Surveillance violates Section 8. The critics continue to argue that Recording people’s private conversations is a violation of Section 8. This is mainly because it converts a person’s fleeting words into a permanent documentary record that infringes on their rights of expression. Additionally, it is a major violation of the right of a speaker to choose their listeners. Just as justice Martin argued, the same should apply in contexts where communication methods result in documentations with the knowledge of the participants.
However, just like justice was served in the above case, the same should happen for the person stabbed by the 15 years old. In my opinion. The court should have made a decision that rules concerning access to justice should apply to adolescents as they do to adults. Law enforcement agencies should be given a chance to investigate whether or not it was a self-defense case. However, after presenting their findings, the judges should make their decisions based on the provisions of the Charter. This involves ensuring that the rights of the two suspects are respected, including those of the diseased.
The Canadian Charter outlines the rights of dealing with the interaction between individuals and the justice system. The main aim of these rights is to ensure that people are treated fairly at various stages of the justice system. This mainly occurs when a person is charged with a criminal offense like in the case of the adolescent. The equality rights as explained in the Charter, are aimed at ensuring that all citizens are treated with the same dignity, respect as well as consideration regardless of personal characteristics like age or sex.
Every Canadian should, therefore, be treated the same under the law. Additionally, people are entitled to the same benefits offered by government policies or laws. However, it is worth noting that the government is not always required by the Charter to always treat people in exactly similar ways. In some cases, protecting equality calls for the adaptation of some rules or standards to accommodate people’s differences.
Conclusion
It is evident from the above discussion that under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, all Canadians are eligible and can access non-discriminatory and fair justice. Equal access to justice means that their voices are heard, they are able to exercise their rights as well as to challenge any form of discrimination within the judicial system. Additionally, all Canadians, whether adults or adolescents has the right to equal benefit and protection by the law. This should happen without any discrimination based on ethnic origin, race, religion, color, age, or sex.