Government Rhetoric Undermines Confidence in the Administration of Justice

Political talk about crime has increasingly zeroed in on so-called “repeat offenders,” tougher bail, and the need to “strengthen” criminal law. This started with catch-and-release rhetoric heard in the last few elections. Although little more than fearmongering, it was effective. It preyed upon the public’s fear and lack of understanding of the criminal justice system. It became politically expedient to support tough-on-crime laws.

The Premier, Attorney General, and mayors now speak about public safety with a frequency and a tone that blurs the lines between the executive and the courts. This has the potential to erode public confidence in the administration of justice.

The pivot began early in David Eby’s tenure as premier. In November 2022, he unveiled a Safer Communities Action Plan, promising new “repeat violent offender” response teams. This brought together the police, dedicated Crown counsel, and probation officers to track alleged high-risk offenders and coordinate files through the system. The province cast this as a way to keep communities safe while addressing mental health and addiction, but the headline emphasis was on coordinated enforcement for chronic violent offending.¹

At the same time, the provincial government has pushed Ottawa for bail reform. The underlying hue and cry is that judges are facilitating a “revolving door” for repeat offenders. This invokes dangerous rhetoric that can, and has, contributed to undermining public confidence in the administration of justice. Attorney General Sharma and Premier Eby have been particularly critical of decisions made by sentencing judges—especially around intimate-partner violence and post-conviction detention pending sentences.²

This executive-branch focus sets the stage for a rhetorical tightrope. While governments can and should propose legislation and policy, they must not tell judges how to decide cases. And yet, this appears to be what the public is demanding. It often seems as though government is doing little to nothing to dispel this mischaracterization of the judiciary’s role. Instead, the government is feeding on this demand to advance a political agenda.

The constitutional principle of judicial independence requires not only that judges be free from direct interference, but that governments refrain from conduct that appears to pressure or influence judicial decision-making. Governments are entitled to criticize laws, identify systemic gaps, and advocate for legislative reform. What they must not do is publicly single out individual decisions or imply judges are failing in their job or should decide differently.

If governments do not like laws, or their effect, their job is to change them, not to criticize courts in their application. This form of criticism risks undermining both the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary.

For example, in late 2023, the Attorney General of BC publicly criticized a voyeurism sentence. And despite public admonishments from members of the bar, CBABC³, and the Law Society⁴, Attorney General Sharma defended her remarks and her right to make them. She doubled down on the “blame the justice system and judges, not systemic failures of government to prevent crime” message.⁵  This illustrates how easily “tough on crime” messaging can slip into attempting to put pressure on the bench.

Vancouver Mayor Ken Sim issued multiple official statements after violent incidents, explicitly tying public safety concerns to “repeat offenders,” while calling for bail reform and for higher-order governments to act. One statement highlighted that a suspect was already on probation for assault with a weapon and had earlier breaches, framing the event as evidence of systemic failure of the justice system.⁶ Another urged “significant changes,” citing the province’s willingness to reverse course on decriminalization and calling on the federal government to address repeat offenders as part of the broader mental health crisis.⁷

Port Coquitlam Mayor Brad West has been one of B.C.’s loudest municipal voices demanding tougher responses to crime. His commentary routinely connects community safety to a so-called “catch-and-release” culture. He has pointed out specific cases where alleged prolific offenders receive “reduced” sentences or are released before they quickly reoffend. Mayor West’s message is clear: judges are too lenient.⁸

Taken together, the message to judges is to deny bail more, and increase sentences even when inconsistent with aggravating and mitigating factors.

This is simply a way that government shirks responsibility and avoids accountability. By framing courts as part of the problem, attention is diverted from their own failures to prevent crime. Creating a common enemy in judges is particularly compelling. Judges cannot respond to these attacks. Their reasons for judgment speak for them, but their judgments are often not widely read or, easily accessible, or easy for the public to engage with.

Even when carefully phrased, comments that portray a sentence as too lenient invite the public to see judges and criminal law standards as obstacles rather than safeguards. That perception risks eroding the constitutional norm that individual sentencing rests with independent courts applying case-specific factors.

The government is entitled to re-prioritize prosecutions, invest in integrated teams, and propose statutory amendments. But when cabinet ministers and mayors react to cases with scrutiny that suggests the courts are failing to protect or are inadequately protecting the public, such commentary can look like attempts to influence the judiciary by press release.

The stakes are bigger than any one case. Public safety depends on effective enforcement and public trust that the rule of law will prevail.

Elected leaders should focus commentary on the laws and policies they are responsible for, rather than the judges who apply them. Rhetoric in B.C. walks that line unevenly. Structured initiatives and measured calls to higher bureaucratic powers make sense and demonstrate the accountability we expect to see from the government. Fueling the fire does not. The challenge is using these initiatives and escalation channels without treating courts as a political punching bag. That balance will determine whether the province improves public safety and respects constitutional obligations.

1. "Premier Eby takes action to keep people, communities safe"
2. "B.C. attorney general, premier under fire for comments on justice system | CBA British Columbia”
   “Eby says B.C. may revise DRIPA legislation, worries court is 'in driver's seat”
   “David Eby says court wrong on Aboriginal title, insists private landowners will be protected”
3. Media coverage of CBABC's criticism of Premier Eby's remarks on the courts
4. Government comments on judicial matters may undermine confidence in justice system
5. “Vaughn Palmer: Lawyers rap Sharma, but she appears to have public support”
   “AG defends comments on judge training after B.C. voyeur escapes jail time”
6. "Official Statement from Mayor Ken Sim in Response to Recent Stabbing from Repeat Offender"
7. "Official Statement from Mayor Ken Sim in Response to Recent Stabbing from Repeat Offender"
8. "Brad West (@BradWestPoCo) on …"; Bail Reform or Political Theatre? Bob Dhanu, KC Joins CBC Debate