Television series such as CSI and Bones have expanded the popularity of forensic evidence over the past decade. Such series often focus on forensics as being the key to finding criminals. The forensic techniques used in such series yield such accurate results. The truth is that forensics often does not yield decisive and accurate results. Forensic science is prone to errors, mistakes and inaccuracies. Over the past several years over 200 people have had their convictions overturned, in which approximately 50% of such cases the overturning of the conviction was based on bad forensic analysis (Brad Reagan, Popular Mechanics, August 2009). There is an ever growing list of individuals who have been wrongfully convicted because of erroneous forensic analysis.
Wrongful convictions occur because jurors put too much weight on scientific experts; it is almost as if they believe their evidence is infallible because of what jurors have seen on television on series such as CSI. It is known as the “CSI effect” because on such television series, forensics experts are never wrong and they yield instant results. Where as in reality, forensic labs are overburdened, understaffed and under intense pressure to deliver accurate results.
Many critics have even called the science behind the forensic part as resting on shaky ground. A vast amount of well established forms of evidence are the result of subjective analysis by individuals with minimum training. There is really no science involved. For example, in Canada, the forensics labs are anchored by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (R.C.M.P.). The forensic analysts are hired directly by the RCMP who monitor and host the national forensic database. It is trained police officers who collect the forensic evidence, not individual forensic experts who are called in. All of the forensic work is done by the police themselves. Bite marks, blood spatter patterns, ballistics, fingerprinting and hair, fiber and handwriting analysis are all done by the police internally. It is also important to note that these forensic police officers do not have specialty degrees but are instead chosen to be members of the forensic unit after working as a patrol member for several years (usually six years). Candidates are then required to go through a three year apprenticeship and 2 exams.
An example of a faulty forensic science is fingerprint analysis. As recent studies suggest that “friction ridge analysis” which is central to fingerprint identification has no statistically valid model (Brad Reagan, Popular Mechanics,August 2009). While fingerprints may be unique, not having a statistically valid model of analyzing them can produce inaccurate results. Yet when it comes to testifying in court, fingerprint analysts testify as if they are absolutely certain of their results. For example, in a 2006 study conducted at the University of Southampton, six veteran fingerprint experts were asked to re-examine fingerprints they had already examined without knowing that they were examining the same fingerprints and only two of them came up with the same conclusion as the first analysis (Brad Reagan, Popular Mechanics, August 2009). Clearly, fingerprint analysis is not an accurate science to say the least.
Not all forensic sciences are faulty. Academics believe that forensic techniques that grew out of organic chemistry and microbiology have a strong scientific foundation. Chromatography and DNA are examples of such sciences that are fairly accurate (Brad Reagan, Popular Mechanics, August 2009). These sciences developed over long periods of time where as the not so good forensic sciences are fairly new, yet they are still being used in court. Fingerprint and ballistic evidence has been around for a while, yet such evidence should be considered with caution as such sciences are still prone to mistakes. Bite marks, foot prints, tire tracks, handwriting, and blood stain analysis all suffer from confounding variables and as a result, such evidence should be considered with caution. Only time will make forensic science into an actual accurate science that could be used in court. However, nobody really knows when and how forensic science will become accurate so there are no more wrongful convictions.
The moral of the story is that forensic science is not accurate. When considering it in court, it should be taken with a grain of salt. Even though forensic science has come a long way from the ‘good old days’, it is still not infallible. All evidence should be weighed; keeping in mind that forensic science on television is different from reality, and that forensic science is not perfect. We don’t need any more wrongful convictions in society!
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Monday, August 29, 2011
B.C. Needs More Natives on Juries
It is a well known fact that Aboriginals are overrepresented in the Canadian criminal justice system, but recent reports suggest that Native people are underrepresented in juries across Canada. Reports suggest that aboriginal jurors are rare, even in communities where there is a significant Aboriginal presence in the community. The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) has decided to take on the issue. David Eby, the head of the BCCLA notes that Aboriginals are expressing concerns that while the jails are full of Native people, the judges, lawyers and juries are predominately white. The Native community feels that they are not being judged by their peers.
Concerns were expressed to then Attorney General Barry Penner, who stated that all efforts are made to include Aboriginal’s in juries. Jurors in British Columbia are chosen from a list compiled by Elections B.C. and therefore all eligible voters are included in the juror list. The Globe and Mail reported on August 22, 2011 that "the province of British Columbia has a policy on the books designed to ensure that Reserve residents who have chosen not to be enumerated are included in the jury, but that policy is dated and it may not have been fully implemented." After receiving such information Mr. Penner contacted 191 Aboriginal bands in an attempt to have more Aboriginals sitting on juries. Four bands out of the six that replied have provided names for the purposes of possible jury duty.
While some may not see this as a pressing issue, I on the other hand do. I believe that it is important for individuals going through the system to be tried in front of their peers. I believe that it is important to recognize that Aboriginals are not subjected to the same issues as society at large; often Aboriginals face significant barriers and disadvantages throughout their lives. I believe that no other individual is in a position to accurately understand what they are going through or what may have led them to commit a criminal offence except an individual that has faced the same systemic barriers as them.
Concerns were expressed to then Attorney General Barry Penner, who stated that all efforts are made to include Aboriginal’s in juries. Jurors in British Columbia are chosen from a list compiled by Elections B.C. and therefore all eligible voters are included in the juror list. The Globe and Mail reported on August 22, 2011 that "the province of British Columbia has a policy on the books designed to ensure that Reserve residents who have chosen not to be enumerated are included in the jury, but that policy is dated and it may not have been fully implemented." After receiving such information Mr. Penner contacted 191 Aboriginal bands in an attempt to have more Aboriginals sitting on juries. Four bands out of the six that replied have provided names for the purposes of possible jury duty.
While some may not see this as a pressing issue, I on the other hand do. I believe that it is important for individuals going through the system to be tried in front of their peers. I believe that it is important to recognize that Aboriginals are not subjected to the same issues as society at large; often Aboriginals face significant barriers and disadvantages throughout their lives. I believe that no other individual is in a position to accurately understand what they are going through or what may have led them to commit a criminal offence except an individual that has faced the same systemic barriers as them.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Remembering Jack
The Honourable Jack Layton, PC, leader of the Official Opposition of Her Majesty the Queen passed away on August 22, 2010 at 4:45 ET at his home in Toronto, Ontario with his family by his side. He was only 61 years old. Unfortunately, his second battle with cancer took his life. Jack, as he was known to Canadians, was the man responsible for single handedly rejuvenating the NDP Party in Canada. In just a few elections, Jack was able to lead the NDP from having a few seats in Parliament to becoming the Official Opposition in Canada for the first time in history in May of 2011. He was a lifelong politician, following in the footsteps of his father and grandfather. Before becoming a Member of Parliament, Jack was a Toronto city councilor.
Many of us remember Jack for his political contributions to Canada and his quest for a better Canada. Even though he was a great politician, he was an even better man. His friends and family can attest to his great personality, and his loving and caring demeanor. In his last few days, Jack penned a letter addressed to all Canadians. In that emotion filled letter, Jack told Canadians that “Canada is a great country, one of the hopes of the world. We can be a better one-a country of greater equality, justice and opportunity.” His letter urged Canadians to move forward and further improve our country. In the last few lines of his letter, Jack told Canadians that “love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world.” Those were the last words of a man that battled cancer and lost. Perhaps, then it was Jack’s optimism that was his greatest attribute because even though he may have lost his battle with cancer, he urged Canadians to continue with their fight telling them “please don’t be discouraged that my own journey hasn’t gone as well as I hoped. You must not lose your own hope. Treatments and therapies have never been better in the face of this disease. You have every reason to be optimistic, determined and focused on the future.” These words highlight, how great of a man Jack Layton was.
The passing of Jack Layton has brought Canadians together, no matter what political party they belong to. Tributes from Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Governor General David Johnston, and former Prime Minister Paul Martin are just amongst the few tributes that have poured in for Jack. You may not have agreed with the policies of Jack Layton, but I am sure it would prove to be a difficult task to find a person that didn’t respect Jack Layton.
My dearest sympathies go out to the Layton family and those that knew Jack personally. It is a great loss to politics, this country and society in general to lose a man like Jack Layton.
Many of us remember Jack for his political contributions to Canada and his quest for a better Canada. Even though he was a great politician, he was an even better man. His friends and family can attest to his great personality, and his loving and caring demeanor. In his last few days, Jack penned a letter addressed to all Canadians. In that emotion filled letter, Jack told Canadians that “Canada is a great country, one of the hopes of the world. We can be a better one-a country of greater equality, justice and opportunity.” His letter urged Canadians to move forward and further improve our country. In the last few lines of his letter, Jack told Canadians that “love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world.” Those were the last words of a man that battled cancer and lost. Perhaps, then it was Jack’s optimism that was his greatest attribute because even though he may have lost his battle with cancer, he urged Canadians to continue with their fight telling them “please don’t be discouraged that my own journey hasn’t gone as well as I hoped. You must not lose your own hope. Treatments and therapies have never been better in the face of this disease. You have every reason to be optimistic, determined and focused on the future.” These words highlight, how great of a man Jack Layton was.
The passing of Jack Layton has brought Canadians together, no matter what political party they belong to. Tributes from Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Governor General David Johnston, and former Prime Minister Paul Martin are just amongst the few tributes that have poured in for Jack. You may not have agreed with the policies of Jack Layton, but I am sure it would prove to be a difficult task to find a person that didn’t respect Jack Layton.
My dearest sympathies go out to the Layton family and those that knew Jack personally. It is a great loss to politics, this country and society in general to lose a man like Jack Layton.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Assisted Suicide Challenge Comes to Halt in BC Supreme Court
Seventeen years ago, Sue Rodriguez began a debate on assisted suicide that is currently making waves in the province of British Columbia. Rodriguez who had amytrophic lateral sclerosis also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease took her challenge of legalizing assisted suicide all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada in 1993. Ms. Rodriguez believed that it was her right to have access to assisted suicide. The Supreme Court of Canada did not see it that way and upheld s.241 (b) of the Criminal Code- which provides a 14 year maximum penalty for assisted suicide as being constitutional. A 5-4 divided court was an indication of how divided not only the top court was but the country was as well. The issue has been constantly debated by lawyers and legal academic everywhere, yet there appears to be no consensus on what the actual right answer is to the question of whether assisted suicide should remain illegal or become legal.
Today, the Supreme Court of British Columbia provided an answer to the Farewell Foundation’s bid to challenge s. 241(b) of the Criminal Code as being unconstitutional. Madam Justice Lynn Scott shot down the request of the Farewell Foundation, who were hoping that assisted suicide would become illegal so the agency would be able to provide such services to individuals who wished to use them. The Farewell Foundation intended on using non-medical practitioners and counselors to provide such services. However, the Farewell Foundation was fighting for both medically assisted suicide and non-medically assisted suicide. Either way their challenge was halted in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. In rejecting the arguments of the Farewell Foundation, Justice Smith urged the Farewell Foundation to join the BC Civil Liberties Association’s (BCCLA) quest for legalizing assisted suicide. The BCCLA is currently fighting for Gloria Taylor, a Kelowna woman who is dying of Lou Gehrig’s disease. The Farewell Foundation has stated that they will seek “intervenor status” in the BCCLA matter as it will continue to allow them to take their cause up in the courts.
While the Farewell Foundation may not have got the result that they wanted, they have rekindled a debate that will undoubtedly be followed closely. Only time will tell whether the BCCLA can help Ms. Taylor take her cause all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada and overturn a decision that has stood for 17 years. Who knew that Sue Rodriguez would trigger a debate in 1993 that is still being discussed and litigated to today. Who knows when this discussion will actually come to an end.
Today, the Supreme Court of British Columbia provided an answer to the Farewell Foundation’s bid to challenge s. 241(b) of the Criminal Code as being unconstitutional. Madam Justice Lynn Scott shot down the request of the Farewell Foundation, who were hoping that assisted suicide would become illegal so the agency would be able to provide such services to individuals who wished to use them. The Farewell Foundation intended on using non-medical practitioners and counselors to provide such services. However, the Farewell Foundation was fighting for both medically assisted suicide and non-medically assisted suicide. Either way their challenge was halted in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. In rejecting the arguments of the Farewell Foundation, Justice Smith urged the Farewell Foundation to join the BC Civil Liberties Association’s (BCCLA) quest for legalizing assisted suicide. The BCCLA is currently fighting for Gloria Taylor, a Kelowna woman who is dying of Lou Gehrig’s disease. The Farewell Foundation has stated that they will seek “intervenor status” in the BCCLA matter as it will continue to allow them to take their cause up in the courts.
While the Farewell Foundation may not have got the result that they wanted, they have rekindled a debate that will undoubtedly be followed closely. Only time will tell whether the BCCLA can help Ms. Taylor take her cause all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada and overturn a decision that has stood for 17 years. Who knew that Sue Rodriguez would trigger a debate in 1993 that is still being discussed and litigated to today. Who knows when this discussion will actually come to an end.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Provincial Court Judge Blasts RCMP over Charter Violations
In the case of R. v. Ho, Hou, Huang, Li and Zhou 2011 BCPC 0186, provincial court Judge P.R. Meyers blasted the RCMP for violating the Charter rights of the accused. In his reasons for judgment, Judge Meyers stated that the RCMP “ignored and flaunted the accuseds’ Charter of Rights and did so consistently over a 14 month period.” The accused individuals were charged with producing ecstasy and possessing ecstasy for the purpose of trafficking.
Over the course of the 14 month investigation there were several gross Charter violations by the RCMP. Judge Meyers notes that these Charter violations included the RCMP’s “initial choice to apply for a Telewarrant rather than to apply to a Justice or Judge in person, to knowing that the suspects probably would not speak or understand English very well but yet not bothering to arrange to have interpreters there to explain to them the reasons for their arrest and what their Charter rights were, to not showing or reading the Warrants to the occupants of two of the house, to leaving two of the accused half-naked, outdoors in the middle of the winter to be hosed down with cold water while in view of their neighbours, to not knowing that they had a legal obligation to file a Report in the Richmond Court Registry within 7 days of the execution of the Warrants.” The Judge noted that it was almost as if the searches had taken place before the Charter existed. He further noted that “the officers in charge, just did not seem to care” and that the “officers in charge of this investigation, operated throughout, in “bad faith”. Judge Meyer ruled that all evidence obtained must be excluded as a remedy under s.24(2) of the Charter.
Judge Meyer sent a clear message to the police, that is that the rights of individuals must be respected regardless of the fact that they have committed a crime. It is important for us citizens to know that our rights will be protected no matter what, but especially when the police search our homes, where we have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Judge Meyer noted in regards to the police not filing a report after the search of the homes of the accused individuals that “it is fundamental to the rights of people who are about to have their homes searched by the police to know that the courthouse in their area will have all of the legal documents pertaining to the intrusion of their privacy, available for them to inspect.” Our privacy in our home should be protected and if the police are going to invade our privacy we should be able to hold them to account on inspection of their search documents.
I hope that the police will learn from this experience and realize that the rights in the Charter are absolute, not arbitrary or temporary. The police can’t just decide that they aren’t going to respect the rights of citizens under the Charter. The rights must be respected at all times no matter what the situation. I am glad to see the courts upholding the rights afforded to us under the Charter.
Over the course of the 14 month investigation there were several gross Charter violations by the RCMP. Judge Meyers notes that these Charter violations included the RCMP’s “initial choice to apply for a Telewarrant rather than to apply to a Justice or Judge in person, to knowing that the suspects probably would not speak or understand English very well but yet not bothering to arrange to have interpreters there to explain to them the reasons for their arrest and what their Charter rights were, to not showing or reading the Warrants to the occupants of two of the house, to leaving two of the accused half-naked, outdoors in the middle of the winter to be hosed down with cold water while in view of their neighbours, to not knowing that they had a legal obligation to file a Report in the Richmond Court Registry within 7 days of the execution of the Warrants.” The Judge noted that it was almost as if the searches had taken place before the Charter existed. He further noted that “the officers in charge, just did not seem to care” and that the “officers in charge of this investigation, operated throughout, in “bad faith”. Judge Meyer ruled that all evidence obtained must be excluded as a remedy under s.24(2) of the Charter.
Judge Meyer sent a clear message to the police, that is that the rights of individuals must be respected regardless of the fact that they have committed a crime. It is important for us citizens to know that our rights will be protected no matter what, but especially when the police search our homes, where we have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Judge Meyer noted in regards to the police not filing a report after the search of the homes of the accused individuals that “it is fundamental to the rights of people who are about to have their homes searched by the police to know that the courthouse in their area will have all of the legal documents pertaining to the intrusion of their privacy, available for them to inspect.” Our privacy in our home should be protected and if the police are going to invade our privacy we should be able to hold them to account on inspection of their search documents.
I hope that the police will learn from this experience and realize that the rights in the Charter are absolute, not arbitrary or temporary. The police can’t just decide that they aren’t going to respect the rights of citizens under the Charter. The rights must be respected at all times no matter what the situation. I am glad to see the courts upholding the rights afforded to us under the Charter.
Friday, June 17, 2011
Game 7: Disappointment after Disappointment
Wednesday June 15, 2011 will forever be remembered as the day the Vancouver Canucks lost 4-0 to the Boston Bruins on home ice, in game number seven of the Stanley Cup Finals, giving Boston their first Stanley Cup victory since 1971-1972. Vancouver was left without hoisting the cup for the third time in franchise history. The day will not only be remembered as the day our beloved Canucks lost the Stanley Cup, but also the day in which the city of Vancouver broke out in a massive riot. Multiple businesses were damaged along the Georgia Street and Granville Street corridor. Companies such as the Hudson’s Bay Company, Bank of Montreal (BMO), London Drugs, Sears and many other smaller businesses had significant damage done to them. Not only were their windows broken but goods and products were also damaged and stolen. Garbage cans and vehicles, including two police cars were also lit on fire. The police were clearly unable to contain the 100,000 plus that gathered downtown to watch the all important hockey game.
Without being able to control the massive crowd, the police were forced to use the Riot Act. The Riot Act was originally brought into force by an Act of Parliament of Great Britain in 1715. As a colony of Britain, the law was incorporated into Canadian law and was later put on statutory footing. The Riot Act is found in ss.32-33 and ss.64-69 of the Criminal Code of Canada. A proclamation, worded as follows will be read out to the crowd, during a riot: “Her Majesty the Queen charges and commands all persons being assembled immediately to disperse and peaceably to depart to their habitations or to their lawful business on the pain of being guilty of an offence for which, on conviction, they may be sentenced to imprisonment for life.” In essence, the Riot Act attempts to prevent unlawful assemblies of 12 or more people. Sad to say, the Riot Act was not successful in dispersing the large crowd that had gathered downtown Vancouver. A significant amount of damage was caused in the downtown core, and the costs for the damage are currently unknown, but are sure to be in the couple of million dollar range.
Questions are being asked as to how the city of Vancouver and its police department could have better handled the situation. Some critics are pointing the finger at the mayor and the city management staff claiming that they did not believe that there would be a riot and therefore they did not provide the police department with enough funds to adequately staff the downtown core for the hockey game. Others are pointing their fingers at the Vancouver police department for being ill-prepared for the riot and for taking too long to react to the situation.
Perhaps the finger should be pointed at the hooligans who engaged in such shameful behaviour. I don’t know what was more disappointing, losing in the Stanley Cup finals to Boston or the riot that tarnished the reputation of our world class city. Due to the actions of the few that wanted to riot, media outlets across the globe blasted our city as being violent. I only hope that the city could regain its reputation as a friendly, world class city. We have held successful mega events such as the Olympics in Vancouver and I hope that in the future we can continue to hold such large events in a successful manner without any negative consequences.
Without being able to control the massive crowd, the police were forced to use the Riot Act. The Riot Act was originally brought into force by an Act of Parliament of Great Britain in 1715. As a colony of Britain, the law was incorporated into Canadian law and was later put on statutory footing. The Riot Act is found in ss.32-33 and ss.64-69 of the Criminal Code of Canada. A proclamation, worded as follows will be read out to the crowd, during a riot: “Her Majesty the Queen charges and commands all persons being assembled immediately to disperse and peaceably to depart to their habitations or to their lawful business on the pain of being guilty of an offence for which, on conviction, they may be sentenced to imprisonment for life.” In essence, the Riot Act attempts to prevent unlawful assemblies of 12 or more people. Sad to say, the Riot Act was not successful in dispersing the large crowd that had gathered downtown Vancouver. A significant amount of damage was caused in the downtown core, and the costs for the damage are currently unknown, but are sure to be in the couple of million dollar range.
Questions are being asked as to how the city of Vancouver and its police department could have better handled the situation. Some critics are pointing the finger at the mayor and the city management staff claiming that they did not believe that there would be a riot and therefore they did not provide the police department with enough funds to adequately staff the downtown core for the hockey game. Others are pointing their fingers at the Vancouver police department for being ill-prepared for the riot and for taking too long to react to the situation.
Perhaps the finger should be pointed at the hooligans who engaged in such shameful behaviour. I don’t know what was more disappointing, losing in the Stanley Cup finals to Boston or the riot that tarnished the reputation of our world class city. Due to the actions of the few that wanted to riot, media outlets across the globe blasted our city as being violent. I only hope that the city could regain its reputation as a friendly, world class city. We have held successful mega events such as the Olympics in Vancouver and I hope that in the future we can continue to hold such large events in a successful manner without any negative consequences.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
New Conservative Legislation Not Likely to Make Trials More Fair and Efficient
Justice Minister Rob Nicholson introduced the first crime bill since the Tories won a majority government. The Fair and Efficient Criminal Trials Act, as its title indicates sets out to make criminal trials more efficient and fair. Measures introduced at reaching this goal include appointing a case management judge for improving case management. Under the current common law, only a judge can rule on preliminary issues at trial. However, with the new Act, a Case Management Judge would be able to rule on preliminary matters. The Conservative government believes that having this position would allow the presentation of evidence to the trier of fact to proceed without interruption, to the extent possible, thereby reducing the overall duration of proceedings. The Case Management Judge would be able to amongst other things promote a fair and expeditious trial, ensure that the evidence is presented without interruption, impose deadlines on parties, assist the parties to narrow their focus on the relevant issues and relevant witnesses, encourage the parties to make admissions and reach agreements, adjudicate upon any issues that can be adjudicated at that stage, and they would be able to hear guilty pleas and hand down sentences. The Case Management Judge would be able to adjudicate on issues such as admissibility of evidence, disclosure, expert witness, change of venue, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and severance of accused or counts on the indictment. The individual would also adjudicate on issues that the trial judge may refer to them, such as presentation of evidence of merits.
Other changes that attempt to reduce duplication include allowing for joint hearings of preliminary motions involving similar evidence that arises from related but separate trials. The new crime bill also calls for allowing a court to delay the enforcement of a severance order by allowing a preliminary issue pertaining to more than one accused or count to be adjudicated by one judge only, prior to severance, thus preventing unnecessary duplication. Currently, once a severance order has been made, the issues are heard separately. The Criminal Code would also be amended so that when a mistrial is declared and a new trial ordered, decisions on certain preliminary issues continue to bind the parties unless the court is satisfied that it is not in the interests of justice. Furthermore, the new bill will also allow for direct indictments to be amended for technical errors where as currently a new direct indictment must be preferred, along with the written consent of the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General. Another proposal of the bill is that a new bail hearing will no longer be held when an accused is subject to a bail or detention order for an offence and a direct indictment is preferred charging the same offence or an included offence.
Proposed changes for improving criminal procedure include swearing fourteen jurors, so jurors do not drop below ten, which is the Criminal Code minimum for valid verdicts. The fourteen jurors would be subject to a random selection process that will determine, after the judge’s charge to the jury, which jurors will deliberate. Other proposed amendments include that jurors be systematically be called into court by their number instead of their name; this would allow for their identity to be protected and allow them to do their job without fear. Lastly, a proposed amendment to s.536.3 of the Criminal Code, would resolve the discrepancy between the English and French version of the section, which calls for the party requesting a preliminary inquiry to provide the other party and the court with a detailed list of witnesses.
While, there is no doubt in my mind that the criminal justice system needs to work more efficiently, I do not believe that all the changes the Conservative governments are introducing will lead to the efficiency of the criminal justice system. For example, I don’t believe that it is a wise thing for judges to be hearing evidential matters of two unrelated trials in one hearing as there is a potential for a judge to be affected in his or her decision making. It is important to keep in mind that under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms everyone has the right to be tried by an independent and impartial tribunal. As for the improvement in procedures, involving indictments, jurors, and the case management judge, I believe that they have the potential to increase the efficiency of the criminal justice system. What these reforms are essentially based on is the government saving money instead of actually fixing the criminal justice system and its delays. What is needed, is more funding so the courts can have more resources to deal with matters and make sure that they are dealt in a swift and efficient manner.
Other changes that attempt to reduce duplication include allowing for joint hearings of preliminary motions involving similar evidence that arises from related but separate trials. The new crime bill also calls for allowing a court to delay the enforcement of a severance order by allowing a preliminary issue pertaining to more than one accused or count to be adjudicated by one judge only, prior to severance, thus preventing unnecessary duplication. Currently, once a severance order has been made, the issues are heard separately. The Criminal Code would also be amended so that when a mistrial is declared and a new trial ordered, decisions on certain preliminary issues continue to bind the parties unless the court is satisfied that it is not in the interests of justice. Furthermore, the new bill will also allow for direct indictments to be amended for technical errors where as currently a new direct indictment must be preferred, along with the written consent of the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General. Another proposal of the bill is that a new bail hearing will no longer be held when an accused is subject to a bail or detention order for an offence and a direct indictment is preferred charging the same offence or an included offence.
Proposed changes for improving criminal procedure include swearing fourteen jurors, so jurors do not drop below ten, which is the Criminal Code minimum for valid verdicts. The fourteen jurors would be subject to a random selection process that will determine, after the judge’s charge to the jury, which jurors will deliberate. Other proposed amendments include that jurors be systematically be called into court by their number instead of their name; this would allow for their identity to be protected and allow them to do their job without fear. Lastly, a proposed amendment to s.536.3 of the Criminal Code, would resolve the discrepancy between the English and French version of the section, which calls for the party requesting a preliminary inquiry to provide the other party and the court with a detailed list of witnesses.
While, there is no doubt in my mind that the criminal justice system needs to work more efficiently, I do not believe that all the changes the Conservative governments are introducing will lead to the efficiency of the criminal justice system. For example, I don’t believe that it is a wise thing for judges to be hearing evidential matters of two unrelated trials in one hearing as there is a potential for a judge to be affected in his or her decision making. It is important to keep in mind that under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms everyone has the right to be tried by an independent and impartial tribunal. As for the improvement in procedures, involving indictments, jurors, and the case management judge, I believe that they have the potential to increase the efficiency of the criminal justice system. What these reforms are essentially based on is the government saving money instead of actually fixing the criminal justice system and its delays. What is needed, is more funding so the courts can have more resources to deal with matters and make sure that they are dealt in a swift and efficient manner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)