| Commentary |
| Commentary (After the FACT) |
| This ROBBINS poll of 400 respondents residing in the lower mainland of British Columbia provides an overview of opinions as these relate to the public’s general perception of BC Supreme Court Judges--and how “comfortable” the people are with them and how these British Columbians based on limited choices offered, perceive -in their opinion- how judges ought to behave (or did behave) in three different cases offered relating to "bias" or in the alternative "the appearance of bias". The first case offered to respondents is hypothetical and features a well known current theme--marijuana grow-ops, the second is a Supreme Court of Canada case that has already been concluded--and the third--features a case which is presented as present day-but in fact has already been concluded--at least insofar as this relates to Kari Simpson who commissioned this ROBBINS poll. |
| I’m prepared to hypothesize based on this survey that approximately (40%) of the BC public is “comfortable” with judges as ‘decision makers’, while (60%) would be more “comfortable” with a jury (question #1). This number is supported by approximately (36%) of the BC public (question #3) who chose the response. “It wasn’t necessary--but the judge wanted to do what she believed was the ethical thing”. |
| The more important elements of this ROBBINS poll relates to matters of judicial “bias” or the “appearance of bias”. Questions #2 and #4 provide overwhelming outcomes of (90%) of Decided respondents who in each case select either the “bias” or the “appearance of bias” response. These questions are further supported by the (90%) + of respondents who support Justice Abella’s decision to refuse to sit on a case that in her opinion may have raised concerns relating to bias (question #3). |
| There are two other matters that should be considered in the face of some very convincing numbers. The first is that there is some intra migration among choices as between the two “bias” responses offered in questions 2 and 4. Some respondents who selected “bias” in question #2, selected “appearance of bias” is question #4. Some respondents who selected “It wasn’t necessary--but the judge wanted to do what she believed was the ethical thing”, from question #3, who selected “Judge” in question #1, and “Remove him/herself because of the appearance of bias” from question #2--selected “Refuse the case because the judge would be bias” from question #4. |
| It is my conclusion based on the information in this ROBBINS poll that the matter of potential judicial bias in question #4--should this matter be well disseminated in the public domain--would result in a nearly unanimous public perception that the B.C. Supreme Court Judge who presided was “bias” or would be “perceived as being bias”. |
| Observations: |
| In question #1 (62%) of Decided respondents are “most comfortable with--a “Jury” as opposed to a “Judge” for themselves or “someone close” to them. Overall, nearly two-thirds of male respondents, particularly those over age 47-are more comfortable with a Jury than a Judge. |
| (91.5%) of Decided respondents are of the opinion that the Judge in the hypothetical ‘marijuana grow-op’ case described in question #2 should remove him/herself “because of bias” or remove him/herself because of an “appearance of bias”. Of the two responses which feature “bias” as an element of the response-(41.5%) are concerned that the Judge assigned to the marijuana grow-op case should remove him/herself “because of bias” while (59.5%) are of the opinion the Judge should remove him/herself “because of an appearance of bias”. |
| (64%) of Decided respondents believe that Supreme Court Justice Rosalie Abella (question #3) did “the right thing” by refusing to sit as a judge on a case where her husband was “involved in related proceedings” as the question presents. (33.5%) selected the more “enabling” response--that “It wasn’t necessary” (for the judge to refuse to sit on a case)--“but the judge wanted to do what she believed was the ethical thing.” Of the three choices offered to respondents in question #4 there is a statistical random opportunity for any particular choice to be selected (33.333...%) of the time. |
| In question #4 this ‘real case’ involving a judge sitting on a case with the potential of ‘bias‘, (87%) of Decided respondents choose either of the two responses which contain the element of ‘bias’. This represents (91.5%) of the total number of Decided respondents from the hypothetical marijuana grow-op question #2 who selected either of the two responses in that question relating to “bias“. |
| (96%) of Decided respondents in question #5 “Agree” with the statement that “Public confidence in our legal system is rooted in the fundamental belief that those who adjudicate in law must always do so without bias or prejudice and must be perceived to do so.” |
| If we permit the final question (#5) to be considered our ‘inverted baseline question’ we observe that (91.5%) of Decided respondents who selected either the “bias” or “appearance of bias” responses from question #2, also “Agree” with the “Public confidence in the legal system” assertion from question #5. |
| Some things to watch for in this ROBBINS poll: |
| 1. In question #1, the FACT that a majority of respondents select jury more often than judge does not mean that respondents do so because they don’t like judges or that judges are unpopular--or conversely, that relatively speaking these numbers might be interpreted as positive for judges--it only suggests that a majority if they or “someone close to them” went to court would be “more comfortable” with a jury--of their peers (we presume). This question is one of our baselines to see how responses in this question ‘shake out’ with responses to other questions. |
| 2. In our ‘series’ of cases (questions) put before the ROBBINS public jury--we observe that one case is past tense (Supreme Court of Canada Justice Abella), one is present tense---question #4, and one question, #2--- is hypothetical. The respondent has nothing invested of this case, it isn’t real--however the crime on the streets in the region in which this poll was conducted--is able in many instances of ‘seeing’ the connection between the violence among gang members described in the news--and the generally disseminated knowledge that much of it is over grow-ops or drugs. This in my professional view mitigates against any interpretation of a hypothetical question as contributing less to the poll. |
| 3. Our ‘apparently heroic’ model case--Supreme Court of Canada Justice Rosalie Abella has already taken action. Respondents aren’t sure what her husband did--but are not eager to condemn her decision, in fact the vast majority assert that her decision was “right” the polar opposite of a decision that could be interpreted as ‘wrong’. What is interesting is that a large segment of respondents who selected “Judge” in question #1 also selected the response “It wasn’t necessary--but the judge wanted to do what she believed was the ethical thing-” from question #3 AND many of these same respondents also selected “Remove him/herself because of the appearance of bias” from question #2. |
| 4. In this question, the judge’s spouse is depicted as a “liar”--does this help or hurt the judge in terms of potential respondent bias? The respondents are also told that “hate” and “extreme political leanings” are “factors” in the judge’s spouse’s case. What are the respondents thinking? Are they wondering what gender is whom? Do respondents presume the judge is a woman because “hate” is involved? Ultimately we ask “What is the right thing for this judge to do?”--remember that Justice Rosalie Abella (question #3) was seen to be doing the “right thing” by (60%) of respondents. Although there is a correlation between questions and responses which are similar--however this correlation is exact. Some respondents from question #1 who chose “Remove him/herself because of bias” chose “Refuse the case because the judge could be perceived as being bias” (the appearance of bias) in question #4. |
| Glen P. Robbins |
| (604) 996-3757
OR contact:
Jim Van Rassel (604) 328-5398 |
