Some recent media commentary on the Supreme Court of British Columbia’s decision in R. v. Kalicum has moved beyond criticism of the decision to attacks on the character and fitness of the judge who made it.
Court decisions can and should be subject to careful scrutiny and vigorous debate. People who disagree with a decision may speak out and challenge its reasoning, and our justice system gives parties an appeal process for challenging decisions where appropriate.
But attacking a judge’s character or fitness—even calling for their removal—goes too far. These kinds of personal attacks risk eroding public confidence in our justice system and collapsing the important distinction between criticizing a decision and attacking the judge who made it. Judges speak only through their decisions and are unable to respond publicly to such personal attacks, making them particularly inappropriate.
Judges must make their decisions based on the law and the evidence before them, after lawyers present arguments to them. While a healthy debate about the merits of those judicial decisions promotes democracy and the rule of law, personal attacks do not.