A B.C. judge had no right to order a man convicted of sexual assault to submit blood and urine for testing on demand as part of his probation conditions, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled this morning.So who is this fine, upstanding citizen whose rights were trampled on?
The case involved a Vancouver man, Harjit Singh Shoker, who broke into a woman's home on Sept. 7, 2003. The woman awoke when Mr. Shoker got into her bed naked.Never mind that this guy was only sentenced to 20 months in jail. The result of the decision is that this convicted criminal with a substance abuse problem, does not have to provide samples of breath, urine or blood to his probation officer.
Will someone please explain to me why Harjit Singh Shoker's rights trump the rights of ordinary citizens?
SIDENOTE: It will come as no surprise that Madam Justice Louise Charron, who wrote this decision, was appointed by the Mr. Dithers government in 2004.
Technorati Tags: Charter of Rights, convicted criminal, Harjit Singh Shoker
