I hate to be absolutist, dogmatic or too harsh with respect to denying people second chances when they have behaved unacceptably. After all, “there but for the grace of God”… “people who live in glass houses”… “let he who is without sin”… etc.
Nevertheless, there are certain professions that demand a higher standard of conduct. Among these, I think most people would agree, are judges. These men and women hold the actual lives of the people who appear before them in the balance. By the very definition of their position, they must be fair and impartial.
Therefore, I simply cannot see how Federal Court Justice Robin Camp can be allowed to return to the bench. That decision is now in the hands of a panel of five fellow judges who have been hearing testimony over the past few days into Camp’s appalling behaviour during a 2014 sexual assault case when he was an Alberta provincial court judge.
During the trial, Camp repeatedly referred to the victim as “the accused.” He also asked her egregious questions such as “Why couldn’t you just keep your knees together?” and told her that “sex and pain sometimes go together” when she complained the experience had been painful.
He even downplayed the alleged rape as “misbehaviour” on the part of the accused and said because he was drunk “the onus was on her to be more careful.”
It is a low move for defence attorneys to blame rape victims, but perhaps somewhat mitigated by their duty to their client. For a judge it is inexcusable. Camp has admitted as much and yet is currently seeking to be excused just the same, fighting to save his job.
He has apologized to the victim, to other abuse survivors, to the judiciary and to his family, but on Friday told the hearing he feels “worst about the questions I asked the accused,” repeating the same error he committed at trial and for which he has since apologized.
Was that a Freudian slip or an innocent mistake? It certainly raises the question of whether he has actually gained any insight into his behaviour. When it was pointed out to him he claimed it was innocent confusion, noting he also mixes up the names of grandsons. If that is true that he simply can’t keep victims and defendants straight, it calls into question whether someone with that kind of cognitive dysfunction is up to the job of being a judge.
The whole trial, which ended with an acquittal was, in fact, a travesty. At one point when the prosecutor challenged the judge, he told her he hoped she didn’t live too long. Last week, he told the panel that was just banter, something he claimed he had gotten used to in the South African justice system where he practiced law until 1998 before he moved to Canada.
At another point Camp counselled the defendant that he and his friends had to be very careful with women “to protect themselves.”
By the end, Camp was openly speculating that the victim had concocted the complaint out of spite.
“Is there not a possibility that a very unhappy thing happened here?” he asked. “Two young people made love, and somebody came afterwards and poisoned the girl’s mind?”
The panel also heard, by Camp’s own admission, that his knowledge of Canadian criminal law was “non-existent” when he was promoted to judge. At the time of the sex assault trial, he admitted he had no experience or training to deal with sexual assault and his rudimentary familiarity with case law was sorely outdated.
And that is where this case becomes not only an indictment of the individual, but also a system that could elevate a person with his outrageous attitudes and lack of knowledge to the position of judge.
In all kinds of rulings, judges must consider the impact on public trust in the integrity of the justice system. Allowing Robin Camp to don his robes once again would definitely be a black mark against the administration of justice.
To his credit, Camp has recently participated in counselling with Justice Deborah McCawley of the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, feminist law professor Brenda Cossman and psychologist Dr. Lori Haskell. Through those sessions he said he gained insight that he harbours deep-seated prejudice toward sexual assault victims.
“At some level that I wasn’t aware of, I was subject to prejudice… the prejudice that all women behave the same way and they should resist,” he said, adding that he can’t guarantee he is not prejudiced in other areas.
Good on him for recognizing it, but those are reflections he should now take with him into retirement, not back into the courtroom.
The panel will now deliberate and make a recommendation whether or not the judge should be removed, which, in the case of Federal Court judges can only be done by an Act of Parliament.
However, a finding for removal, which is very rare, usually prompts the resignation of the judge in question.
Camp’s acquittal of the alleged rapist, Alexander Wagar, was thrown out by the Alberta Court of Appeals. He will face a new trial.
