Retired Judge Salutes Colleague and Friend
Sunday, January 03, 2010 03:45 AM
IN MEMORY OF LES BEWLEY
by Justice Wallace Gilby-Craig (retired)
With every joyous ushering in of the New Year we are moved to sing Robert Burns’ sentimental “Auld Lang Syne.”
Burns took an old Scottish parting song and transformed it into an anthem of loyalty to friends and family coupled with nostalgia for earlier times and those no longer with us.
On New Year’s Eve I raised a glass to my friend and colleague Les Bewley – a quintessential judicial gadfly. He died on May 28, 1988. He was 71.
In 1960, Bewley was appointed to Vancouver’s Magistrates Court (then in the Public Safety Building at 312 Main Street) and soon fascinated the media and ordinary folk with his unpredictable yet strong and witty presence on the bench.
Twenty-one years later, on April 30, 1981, Bewley was singularly honoured on his last day in provincial criminal court at 222 Main Street. It was a televised ceremony in a jam- packed courtroom 514, presided over by the then chief justices of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of British Columbia, Nathan T. Nemetz and Allan McEachern – with Bewley seated between them.
Bewley and the Chief Justices were addressed by six speakers representing court staff, court administration, crown and defence counsel, the Vancouver police, and the attorney general, then the chief judge of the Provincial Court, a county court judge and a supreme court judge. All received applause from the public gallery for their tributes and recounting of many Bewleyisms, my two favourites being:
(Bewley, to crown counsel) “I’m going to set bail in this case in an amount that I think the Crown’s case is worth. Bail will be ten cents;
(Bewley, to an irrepressible 72-year-old prostitute whom he had admonished two days earlier to “sin no more” as he released her, only to have her back again for another act of prostitution) “Madam, I do not know whether to condemn or congratulate you.”
Tom Braidwood, as a defence counsel, commended Bewley for speaking publicly about the role of the Parole Board. “We know and we have learned, I think, from the fact that when you believed that the Parole Board was improperly interfering with the sentences that the judiciary had set, that your conscience told you (it) was an improper interference with the administration of justice and that (it was bringing) the administration of justice … into disrepute. That caused you to break your ordinary silence and I, for one, think you are to be complimented on that.”
After the two chief justices had spoken, Bewley expressed his gratitude and then became serious as he stated his concern about criminal justice. “It seems to me that there is much left to be done in terms of the administration of justice in this community.
“It has in the past properly concerned itself with the rights of accused persons and convicted offenders, but I have reached the conclusion that it has not concerned itself as much with the rights of the law-abiding victims.
“To me, true justice can not concern itself disproportionately with those who break the laws of this community, and must be equally concerned with the rights and liberties of those civilized citizens who respect and obey the laws of this community.”
Suddenly Bewley reached for his handkerchief and, with tears welling up, put aside his prepared remarks and said, “So I say good-bye to you. I will miss this Bench; it has been my life; I will miss you all very much, more than I can ever say. Good-bye and God bless you.”
To prolonged applause Bewley rose, bowed to all and left the bench for the last time – followed by Nemetz and McEachern.
In retirement Bewley penned a twice-weekly column for the Vancouver Sun from 1982 to 1985. In 1988 he was a contributing writer for the North Shore News from January to March.
Of greater significance is Bewley’s 1984 essay The Breakdown of the Criminal Justice System in Canada; a plain-spoken polemic, mainly on the disastrous consequences of parole.
Here’s an excerpt:
“Fewer than three per cent of federal prisoners now serve the full sentences imposed by the courts. As a direct result of this clearly unconstitutional butchery, no trial judge in Canada has any expectation that his sentence will be honoured; the worth of judicial coinage is shamefully debased; the hard and dedicated work of police officers is mocked; and every crook or would-be crook in Canada is vastly encouraged to commit even more crimes, and is not deterred, because he knows full well that the court’s sentence – to put it politely – ain’t worth spit.”
Every law-and-order commentary I have written for over the last five years can be traced back to Bewley’s essay and in many ways reflect our many conversations during his last months, particularly that Canadians are no longer protected by the three essential elements in prevention of crime namely: certainty of detection, speediness of process between arrest and trial, and certainty of punishment.
This commentary is in remembrance of my trusty friend Bewley for whom I took "a cup o’ kindness yet; for auld land syne".
* * * *
Editor’s Note:
Justice Wallace Gilby-Craig will be spending much of January and February as part of a three member panel for the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, hearing a complex case in Ottawa and there is a likelihood he will have further dates scheduled on that matter. As a result, he will be taking a break from writing a column, except on those occasions when his spirit is moved by particular issues.
We thank him for his contributions, and look forward to those special occasions when we have the opportunity to read his commentaries once again.
Previous Story - Next Story
Email
Print
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
Del.icio.usReturn to Home
Posted by: Harbinger on January 3 2010 6:38 PM
That body makes more of a mockery of the entire "justice system" than any Parole Board decisions could ever do.
Why ANY experienced Jurist, with ANY respect for the history, and traditions, and hard won protections for the individual embodied in our "British" based legal system would debase himself by being part of a Tribunal trying the accused in a setting where "truth is no defense" is beyond me.