The Crown submits that the joint submission on sentence is in the best interests of the administration of justice because the defendants have come forward and unequivocally accepted responsibility for their transgressions. In so doing, they have eliminated the exigencies inherent in a lengthy jury trial that would have occupied the members of the jury, the court process and court resources for a time well beyond mid‑March 2011 as had been scheduled.
In other words, the trial of David Basi and Bobby Virk would be happening DURING a leadership race for the BC Liberals...... my, my, my but the optics would certainly be bad for the leadership hopefuls, having to fend off questions from the media, not only regarding the race, but the riot of public opinion on whether BC Rail was a steal.
From the Link above there this quote from Item 12 and the next Item:
If you don't know about the The Court in Berntson there is this link: and another quote: Sections 121 and 122 of the Criminal Code create indictable offences for which the offender is liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years. The authorities state that breach of trust by an official is indeed a serious offence but that a wide range of possible sentences may be imposed depending on all the circumstances. The Crown relies on R. v. Berntson, 2000 SKCA 47, 145 C.C.C. (3d) 1. In that case, Mr. Justice Tallis referred to R. v. Hinchey,  3 S.C.R. 1128 at para. 18, 111 C.C.C. (3d) 353, where the Supreme Court of Canada said:... given the heavy trust and responsibility taken on by the holding of a public office or employ, it is appropriate that government officials are correspondingly held to codes of conduct, which for an ordinary person, would be quite severe. The Court in Berntson emphasized the importance of this trust, adopting the observation that "public office means serving the public and nobody else." I acknowledge that these principles are applicable in the present case.
[G]iven the heavy trust and responsibility taken on by the holding of
a public office or employ, it is appropriate that government officials
are correspondingly held to codes of conduct which, for an
ordinary person, would be quite severe.
— Hon. Claire L’Heureux-Dubé1
The doctrine of separation of powers has been stated to be an “essential feature” of
our constitution.2 The Supreme Court of Canada has described it thus:
There is in Canada a separation of powers among the three branches of
government - the legislative, the executive and the judiciary. In broad terms,
the role of the judiciary is, of course, to interpret and apply the law; the role
of the legislature is to decide upon and enunciate policy; the role of the
executive is to administer and implement that policy.
the role of the executive is to administer and implement that policy, or have Deputy Ministers do it.