NARROW OR WIDE JUDICIAL DECISION

In June 1985, an Air India flight from Canada was destroyed by a bomb.
Here it is March 2010, 25 years later and the legal mess continues with the trial of Ajaib Singh Bagri on a charge of perjury.

In 2000, fifteen years after the bombing, Ripudaman Singh Malik and Ajaib Singh Bagri, were arrested and charged with the bombing. Their 16 month trial in 2003-2004 required the construction of a special purpose high-security courtroom at a cost of some C$7.2 million.

They were tried by a judge alone and in March of 2005, Justice Ian Josephson acquitted them.

Two conclusions were possible.
1. Establishment of culpability on the basis of "beyond reasonable doubt".
2. Establishment of culpability on the basis of "balance of probabilities".

The learned judge gave his decision on the first of these. His conclusion reflected his assessment of reasonable doubt and thus their acquittal.

Why did the judge not also add his opinion on the second?

What difference would it make even now 25 years later?
1. A further degree of clarity.
2. The possibility of successful civil actions without the high cost of additional legalities.
3. An increased confidence in our investigative and judicial system.

The aggregate cost of the investigation and prosecution was some $C 130 million.
Our society did not get its money's worth. We were and still are entitled to the judge's view on the second possible conclusion.