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
