STOPWATCH - March 1995

Yardstick of Accountability: The SafetyNet Conference

In September of 1994, CAVEAT hosted SafetyNet, Canada's first national conference on Crime Prevention, Public Safety and Judicial Reform.

"When Nina disappeared, all of us were shocked. Since we became extremely busy that week, we didn't have a lot of time to think about what her disappearance meant to us: we just wanted her back. Our frantic activity served as a convenient distraction for a lot of us. In those occasional moments when we did have enough time to think of what was really going on, our only hopes were that Nina was at least alive.

Somehow, over the next week, as the reality of her disappearance set in and the nature of such cases of abduction became known to us, we began to hope not that she was at least alive, but that she was at least, mercifully, dead.

"A speaker generally likes to infuse his audience with a personal feeling for his involvement in the subject on which he is speaking. In this case, I gladly ignore that aim. Pain teaches, but a society which wishes to further itself in a positive direction with the greatest energy and momentum it can, must learn to learn without needing to be beaten and abused into action.

"Many of you are here because you are the survivors of violent crimes. This conference is a tribute to your courage. There is another group of people in this room, however, who are here not as the survivors of crime, but as people who can see clearly enough into our society that they too feel inside themselves the need to solve the problems we face. It is to these people that I would like to say something.

"This conference is not for the dead: for their benefit or vengeance. Nina's eyes are closed. Ours have been opened. If at any time during the course of this conference you begin to wonder why we are here, and why CAVEAT exists, remember that we, all of us here, have had our eyes opened. Our job now is to see that others' eyes are opened, that they stay open, and that no one again be allowed commit the terrible crime of forever closing someone's eyes." - Christopher Forrest, speaking at the opening ceremonies of the SafetyNet conference

The effects of violence on victims and the community were never far from our minds during the SafetyNet conference, held September 18-20, 1994, at the Sheraton Hotel in Hamilton, Ontario.

The conference assembled the leading justice reform and community safety activists, as well as victim advocacy groups and victims from across the country and from many disciplines.

The name, SafetyNet, was chosen to emphasize the main goals of this conference: to put together draft legislation and public policy that improves the safety of every Canadian, and; to allow an opportunity for networking of people from across the country, many with similar goals and mandates, but necessarily separated by geographical and other, less concrete barriers. The name also invokes images of the social safety net. There is little point in feeding, housing, educating, and providing health care for the community if there is not adequate protection against crime.

Part I consisted of eight multi-disciplinary working groups which assembled to discuss current concerns on Public Safety, Crime Prevention and Judicial Reform. Victims and victim advocacy groups joined politicians, judges, chiefs of police, police officers, educators, psychiatrists, crown attorneys, lawyers and others from many different backgrounds to discuss policies, and suggest legislative amendments, new legislation, community initiatives and uniform standards, directed to the Federal, Provincial and Territorial governments.

Part II, entitled Victimization: Dealing with the Issues consisted of three panel discussions in which professionals in the court system, corrections and parole, and the media explained to the delegates, many of whom were victims, how they could best deal with the system.

The free exchange between panelists and delegates gave valuable insight into the problems, misconceptions and frustrations that so many victims of the criminal justice system experience.

Although the victim is 50% of the crime, he/she is seldom consulted as 50% of the solution, with the result that academic judgements and assessments bearing little resemblance to reality have long directed any fleeting mention of victims in the system.

One of the most interesting sessions on the Victimization side of the conference was the opportunity to hear presentations by Willie Gibbs, the Chairman of the National Parole Board, and John Edwards, given by a representative of Correctional Services of Canada. Each of these distinguished guests spoke of his views of the correctional system in Canada, and then fielded emotional and direct questions from the audience, which was largely composed of victims.

The Dealing with the Media sessions revealed insights into ways that victims and their families should interact with the media at various stages in the progression of their court cases. There was also discussion of the standards which the media does and should uphold, their ethics in justice-related stories, and ways in which the victims and their families can use the media to their benefit.

The working panels sat in closed sessions for one and a half days of discussion during SafetyNet. Submissions had been made by delegates and other interested agencies prior to the conference. Working from this base of materials, the eight working groups began their task of producing concrete amendments to existing legislation, proposals for new legislation, and protocols for policy for government at all levels.

On the last afternoon of SafetyNet, all of the attendees gathered at the Nina de Villiers Memorial Garden. The garden had been established by students and faculty of McMaster University in Nina's name, but dedicated to all victims of crime.

From the beginning, our goal has been to host a national ceremony in remembrance of victims of crime. This was our first opportunity to realize this dream, while at the same time closing the conference with the same message that had marked its opening: the justice system's primary purpose must be to ensure the protection of the public and the rights of victims.

Friends and family members of Nina de Villiers, Joan Heimbecker (murdered in 1994 at McMaster University), Nursing Professor Janet McKnight (murdered in Hamilton in 1994), History Professor Edith Whiteman (murdered at McMaster in 1990), and other victims gave a tribute to their loved ones in words and music. The ceremony was an emotional assembly that united its audience and reinforced a commitment to making our country a safer place.

All of the participants in the SafetyNet Conference, and concerned citizens across Canada, demand and await tangible steps on the part of the Governments. The work has been done. The recommendations have been developed and presented to the government, not with the question 'Will you?', but 'When will you?'

On December 12, 1994, CAVEAT President Priscilla de Villiers and CPA Executive Director Scott Newark presented the SafetyNet Final Report to the Hon. Allan Rock, Minister of Justice and the Hon. Herb Gray, Solicitor General. Reports were sent to all Members of Parliament, as well as to all Provincial and Territorial Ministers of Justice and Solicitors General. CAVEAT will continue to monitor the progress of the recommendations and keep you informed. Copies of the SafetyNet Final Report are available from CAVEAT.

"This report is something of a yardstick of accountability for those among us who do have the power to act in the public interest. Let it not be said 'no one ever suggested that' as an excuse in future years for inaction. What is contained here is the beginning of a concrete approach to real public safety in Canada through the reform of both policy and law. While we have always had the information about what needs to be done, we now have a vision of how that can be accomplished. All that is required is the political will to do so. - Scott Newark, Executive Director, Canadian Police Association; President, Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime

Key Recommendations of the SafetyNet Working Groups

Border Security

• creation of a Border Protection Service to coordinate the functions presently performed by various government agencies, including CSIS, RCMP, and Customs and Immigration.
• upgrading technology to ensure that border protection officers have accurate information.
• tightening of immigration procedures to ensure that deportation orders are carried out swiftly, and that those ordered deported remain in confinement until travel documents are available.

Community Standards and Child Exploitation

• those convicted of sexual offences against children be candidates for dangerous offender status.
• mandatory HIV testing where there is a possibility that the victim may have contracted the HI virus from the offender.
• removal of 'artistic merit' as a defense to the possession, production or distribution of child pornography.

Crime Prevention

• primary reform measures designed to lower tolerance for violence.
• secondary reform measures, including firearms control, which reduce the risk of crime.
• tertiary measures to ensure quick and effective responses by society once a crime has occurred.

Firearms and Public Safety

• tightening of firearms controls, including the establishment of a national firearms registry.
• tougher deterrance measures, including more severe sentences where firearms are used in the commission of a crime.
• upgrading of border protection measures through improved resources, staffing and surveillance at border crossings.

High Risk Offenders

• allow application for dangerous offender status after initial sentencing.
• compulsory dangerous offender applications to be made when criteria are met.
• withdrawal of proposed capping legislation for mentally disordered offenders.

Parole Reform

• repeal of Criminal Code, Section 745.
• gathering, analysis and presentation of information concerning conditional release and supervision of offenders be removed from Correctional Services and placed under an independent parole board.
• repeal Section 127 of CCRA to eliminate statutory release, replacing it with discretionary conditional release and restricted residency where appropriate.

Victims' Rights

• enact a Federal Victims' Rights Bill.
• establish core competencies that Justices of the Peace be required to meet.
• require that courts consider Victim Impact Statements.

Youth and the Young Offenders Act

• empowering of courts to direct treatment and counselling without the consent of the offender.
• automatic transfer of serious personal injury offences to adult court.
• coordinated efforts to reduce violence in schools.

CAVEAT wishes to thank the major sponsors of SafetyNet:

• Shoppers Drug Mart
• Canadian Police Association
• Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime

Introducing CAVEAT BC

CAVEAT is pleased to announce that our supporters
in British Columbia have formed a regional office.
Welcome, CAVEAT BC.

This active group is comprised of victims, family members and other concerned citizens and has been meeting regularly since December, 1993. Chris Simmonds is the Chair of the new branch.

In the aftermath of Sian Simmonds' violent death, Chris, Sue and Katie Simmonds were distraught at the loss of their daughter and sister and angered by the violence inflicted on her.

Faced with the unending pain of losing Sian, the action that soon became uppermost in Chris' mind was that he must do something to prevent a further senseless tragedy from happening to another family.

To begin his mission, he researched many organisations and talked to other victims and groups from across the country. In March, 1993 he called CAVEAT. He told us that his daughter had been murdered by a suspect who was out on bail.

The CAVEAT message appealed to Chris and his friends, and they asked for copies of the de Villiers Petition to circulate in British Columbia. Their monumental efforts were the first step in the formation of a regional office of CAVEAT in British Columbia.

CAVEAT's President, Priscilla de Villiers, and its directors and members are very pleased to welcome CAVEAT BC as an associate. We wish them great success in addressing the issues of crime prevention, victims' rights, and legislative changes in British Columbia.

CAVEAT BC has maintained an open-line contact with local federal and provincial politicians, radio and television stations and newspapers. Chris Simmonds is available to speak on CAVEAT issues, and has spoken on victims' rights at various public speaking engagements in British Columbia, including a Justice Reform Rally in Fort St. John in June, 1994. He also appeared as a panelist at a public forum held in Abbotsford, BC.

Several people from BC, including Chris and Sue Simmonds, attended the CAVEAT SafetyNet Conference held in Hamilton, Ontario in September, 1994.

CAVEAT BC is presently seeking volunteers to help with its public awareness agenda and is optimistic about the positive response it has received from interested people in the area.

CAVEAT would like to thank the Langley office of Deloitte and Touche, Jimmy Young and the Langley Masonic Lodge for their continued support of CAVEAT BC. To the people of British Columbia, who have given so much in financial support and volunteer hours to further our initiatives, we are very grateful.

The Simmonds Family Story

In dealing with a terrifying ordeal, the most difficult step in the healing process can be the first one. The decision to initiate legal proceedings is made not for revenge, but for justice, and to ensure that others are spared similar humiliation and injustice.

Sian and Katie are the daughters of Chris and Susan Simmonds of Langley, B.C., a community near Vancouver. As a family they had discussed what action the young women should take against the inappropriate conduct of their family doctor, Dr. Josephakis Charalambous. They decided it would be in the best interests and safety of others to complain to the British Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons to put a stop to his invasive abuse.

The complaint turned into a hellish nightmare from which the family will never escape.

Word of the complaints enraged the doctor, and he set about masterminding a plan to silence the girls and ensure that he would not be implicated. Sian and Katie Simmonds' complaints were not the first against him, and he knew that any further charges of inappropriate behaviour would result in the loss of his accreditation in B.C. and in the rest of Canada. Charalambous wasn't prepared to give up simply because allegations had been made against him by the young Simmonds girls. He placed a higher value on his career than on the lives of the patients whom he had abused.

He arranged, through his friend Brian West, to have David Schlender kill Sian and her sister at their aunt's home in Surrey. Schlender was out on bail after being charged with attempted murder.

Sian was murdered on January 27, 1993, silencing her forever. The perpetrator approached her with a .22 calibre pistol equipped with a silencer, shot her twice, and beat her with the butt and scope of the weapon. She would have celebrated her twentieth birthday the next day. Her older sister Katie escaped injury because she was away at the time.

By the fall of 1994, two of those involved in Sian Simmonds' death had been tried, convicted and sentenced to prison.

David Schlender, who was paid to carry out Sian's murder, pleaded guilty to second degree murder in her death, and guilty to attempted murder on the charge for which he had been granted bail. The judge sentenced him to two life sentences to be served in prison with no eligibility for parole for twenty years and fifteen years respectively. The sentences are to be served concurrently.

Dr. Josephakis Charalambous was found guilty on one count of first degree murder and one count of conspiracy to commit murder. On each conviction he was sentenced to life in prison with no eligibility for parole for twenty five years, and will serve both sentences concurrently. He also faces nine other charges brought forward by four other patients. The medical practitioner's licence that was worth killing for was suspended.

Brian West, a friend of Charalambous who pressured Schlender to commit murder, has yet to be tried. His trial is scheduled to begin May 1, 1995.

Parole: Priority Without Protection
Why was a criminal with a record 'as long as your arm' set free to kill?

Long before June 13, 1992, when 24 year-old Angela Richards was murdered, her killer had built a criminal history. The public was not informed about Wayne Alexander Perkin's criminal past, despite the fact that he was an obvious and violent threat to public safety.

Angela's murder offered further proof and yet another tragic example of the desperate need for change in Canada's Criminal Code. Perkin, an offender who had previously committed a violent crime, was on parole at the time he murdered Angela.

Criminal data on Perkin dates back to the 1960's. His crimes escalated in violence until he ultimately reached the criminal capacity of taking an innocent life. It was Canada's criminal justice system that allowed Perkin to grow more and more dangerous.

After weapons offences and several periods of incarceration, he sexually assaulted a female tenant in the building of which he was manager. He was charged with kidnapping and unlawful confinement, administering a noxious substance, assaulting the woman with a hammer, and threatening to kill her if she did not cooperate.

He was convicted of some of the charges and sentenced to three years in prison. The Crown successfully appealed, and Perkin's sentence was increased to six years. Since sentences are served concurrently, he was paroled after serving only 30 months.

Had Perkin not been released so easily through our parole laws, Angela Richards would be alive today. The fact that the justice system continues to fail to protect the public and fails to prevent further tragedies is shocking and inexcusable.

The tenants living in the Langley, B.C. apartment complex were unaware of Perkin's past when he took up residence there following his release from prison in 1989. He was free to live next to and later kill Angela Richards, his neighbour across the hall.

Richards was killed on the evening of June 13, 1992. Her body lay decomposing for an entire week before being discovered. As was stated later by the judge at Perkin's sentencing, 'Perkin meanwhile maintained his daily routine, still the neighbour across the hall.'

Although Perkin was suspected soon after Richards' body was discovered, it took until May 5, 1993 to charge him with the murder. Nearly 11 months of pain and anger were endured by Angela's family and friends as they learned the prime suspect in the murder had refused to provide the RCMP with blood or hair samples. Furthermore, Perkin was on parole, which added to the RCMP officers' frustration in bringing charges in the case.

After Perkin was formally charged in May, 1993, the first in a long list of judicial hurdles was the September preliminary hearing. Once it was clear that there was sufficient evidence to warrant a trial, May 28, 1994 was set as the date for the hearing. This, however, was pushed ahead six weeks and the trial was rescheduled for February 14.

The trial was scheduled to take place at the New Westminster Supreme Court and was expected to last three weeks. New Westminster is the same city where Angela Richards grew up, was an elementary school May Queen, a high school homecoming queen and a representative in a Miss New Westminster Pageant.

Although the defence initially chose a trial by judge and jury, the defence's request for a mistrial after eleven days forced both the Crown and the defence to agree to dismiss the jury and continue the trial before Justice Ian Josephson alone. Though the testimony of previous witnesses was read into the transcripts, a new trial officially began on March 7, 1994.

The trial was marred by a great deal of legal wrangling, and included another mistrial application, a stay-of-proceedings request, a week's delay and a successful defence argument to bring in another witness.

The court heard that Wayne Perkin knocked Angela Richards unconscious and stabbed her twelve times. The motive for his actions was that he needed to prevent her from telling his wife that he had made sexual advances toward the much younger Richards. What should have been a relatively simple case took ten weeks, concluding on April 21, 1994.

At the June 30 sentencing, five weeks after the second degree murder conviction, Justice Josephson cited several reasons for an increase in the minimum sentence. He set parole eligibility at 18 years based on the fact that Perkin showed no remorse for the crime, and the murder bore a disturbing similarity to his aggravated sexual assault of the young woman in 1986. Both women had been alone and were defenceless, and Perkin was on parole at the time of both crimes.

The last reason, his violation of parole, illustrated one of the most frustrating and incomprehensible aspects of Angela Richards' murder. Wayne Perkin had manipulated and slipped his way through the system. He had previously been behind bars where he could not hurt anyone.

'Had he served a six-year sentence (for the first crime), my sister would be alive today,' Angela's sister Corinne Schafer said to TV cameras outside court.

More than two full years had passed between Angela's murder and Perkin's sentencing. After two years of silence, those deeply affected could finally speak. 'He should have still been there (jail),' said Lorna Richards, Angela's mother, moments after the guilty verdict was read. With regard to Perkins prior violence, she added, 'He only got six years, he did less than three. And he's out in time to kill my daughter.'

The tragedy also got the attention of the people who have the power to do something about the justice system. Randy White, Reform Member of Parliament for Fraser Valley, said after attending the conviction, 'This is just another example of how the system doesn't work.'

Even though countless people spoke of a widespread lack of faith in the Canadian criminal justice system, perhaps no one is more compelling than retired RCMP member Dennis Osse. A 26-year veteran at the time, Osse said in May of 1993, following Perkin's arrest, though not aired on TV until conviction, 'This is my personal opinion...our society, our system has let her down. I say that primarily because I'm sure if this young woman had been aware of who was living next door to her, she would have chosen to reside somewhere else.'

The silence was broken. After the June 30 sentencing, UTV reporter Kate Corcoran stated; 'Justice Ian Josephson listed several reasons for the sentence, among them Perkin's cool-headedness, saying Perkin 'cleaned the scene and moved items to throw investigators off...carried on life in a normal fashion while Richards' body lay decomposing.'

Even an hour after the sentencing, family and friends still stood with mixed emotions and confusion outside the courthouse. Corinne Schafer said to television crews and other reporters, 'I'm upset obviously, it's ridiculous, look at the background of him, look at him. Whose daughter is he going to live next to in 18 years when he's out on parole for God's sake...I wanted no parole, he cannot handle parole obviously. He was on parole when he killed my sister, he doesn't know what parole is...why should he ever be allowed to go on parole again?'

Wayne Perkin was also charged with a multitude of other offences between the times of his arrest and trial. This was after a woman finally felt safe coming forward, knowing that he was in custody and facing lengthy incarceration. She had been victimised by Perkin in 1986, but fear for her personal safety had prevented her from coming forward.

In August, 1994 the preliminary hearing yielded three new charges against Perkin. He will be facing another trial commencing March 20, 1995 on charges of indecent assault, gross indecency and the sexual assault of the other female tenant.

Section 745: A 40% Discount on Life Sentences

A little-known section of Canada's Criminal Code gives murderers sentenced to life in prison the opportunity to apply for a reduction of up to 40% in time served. Nearly three out of four applicants get a reduction. Their victims never will.



Section 745 -- Background and Foreground

Background

In 1976, capital punishment for convicted murderers was eliminated in Canada and replaced with mandatory life imprisonment. People convicted of first degree murder had to serve a minimum of twenty-five years in prison while those convicted of second degree murder had to serve between ten and twenty-five years (to be determined by the judge at the time of sentencing) before becoming eligible for parole.

At the same time, Section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada was introduced, producing a loophole to these sentences. Section 745, simply put, states that if a person has been convicted of first or second degree murder and has served fifteen years of the sentence, he/she is allowed to apply to the court to ask for a reduction in the number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole. In effect, the offender is asking for a reduction of their original sentence.

On receiving the application for review, a judge brings together a jury to decide whether or not to reduce the time to be served. The jury will hear about the character of the applicant, his/her conduct while serving the sentence, the nature of the original offence and anything else the judge might deem necessary. The jury can decide to reduce the number of years of imprisonment without parole, set a time in the future for another hearing, or deny the application outright. Two thirds of the jury must agree on the decision: it need not be unanimous.

The Crown cannot retry the original offence at this time. As John Nunziata, Member of Parliament for York South-Weston, stated, 'It must be remembered that during the reviews, the jury cannot take into account the circumstances of the crime or the notorious character of the inmate due to that crime. They can only hear evidence of how he has behaved in an institution.'

The jury is only allowed to hear the nature of the offence, not the chilling details.


Foreground

John Nunziata, MP, has introduced Private Member's Bill C-226, which calls for the removal of Section 745 from the Criminal Code. Nunziata has stated that, 'When a person is sentenced to life in prison without eligibility for parole for twenty-five years, that is exactly what it should mean.'

It is very unusual for a back-bencher's bill, especially one that is contrary to government policy, to reach the committee stage. In a free vote in the House of Commons on December 13, 1994, 136 Members of Parliament voted for the bill to be read a second time, thus referring it to committee for further study. Of the 103 members who voted against the motion, 9 were members of the Justice and Legal Affairs committee, and included its chairman and Section 745 author, Warren Allmand.

In a communiqué from March 1994, Nunziata said 'Section 745 is one of the fundamental flaws that is contributing to declining public confidence in our justice system. It is asking Canadians to accept new definitions for the penalty of murder. Life imprisonment does not mean life, it really means twenty-five years. Twenty-five years doesn't always mean twenty-five years, it's more likely to mean fifteen years.' He went on to say, 'The rights, concerns and lives of law-abiding citizens are neglected while our resources focus solely on ensuring that violent criminals, many of whom refuse treatment, are treated with kid gloves.'

CAVEAT will monitor the progress of C-226 to ensure that it does not get shelved at the committee stage.

We need every Canadian to contact her or his MP and express the importance of Bill C-226 to public safety.

Call your library or CAVEAT to find out the name of your MP.

Coming Soon to a Court Near You...

Some of the over 600 'lifers' who will be able to apply for review under Section 745 are listed below:

• Anthony Speciale, 47, is serving 'life' with no chance of parole for 23 years for the 'point blank range' shooting slayings of Stanley Norman, 33, and Bill Lianzakis, 30, and his brother Paul 23, in Toronto in 1977.
  
  
• Saul Betesh, 44, and Ronald Kribs, 47, are serving first degree murder terms for the brutal sex-slaying of a 12-year-old shoe shine boy, Emmanuel Jaques, in July, 1977.
  
  
• Ronald Neely, 53, went on a murder rampage in November, 1977 when his wife moved out with their four children. He killed his 13-year-old son with a shotgun and wounded two of his daughters. Family members fear that if he gets out early, he'll 'finish them off'.
  
  
• Craig Alfred Munro, 43, will be eligible for judicial review in March, 1995. He was a career criminal out on mandatory supervision when he murdered 30 year-old Metro Toronto policeman Michael Sweet during a robbery. The officer, a father of three, bled to death as Munro and his younger brother ignored Sweet's pleas to think of his family.
  
  
• Terrance Derek Musgrave, 38, will be eligible to apply for a judicial review in January, 1996. He is serving a life term without parole for 18 years for the 1981 murder of 43 year-old North York store owner Cathy Maruya. Her body had 28 stab wounds. Musgrave was out on mandatory supervision at the time of the murder.
  
  
• Daniel James Wood, 41, will become eligible to apply for early release in July, 1997. He is serving two life terms for the March, 1979 murder of Merla Laycock in Calgary and the July, 1982 murder of Judy Anne Delisle, 38, of Toronto. A Calgary police detective described Wood as 'the most evil man I have ever laid eyes on.'

These offenders will also be able to apply for review on the following dates:

• Clifford Olson, August 12, 1996
• Colin Thatcher, May 7, 1999
• Helmut Buxbaum, July 23, 1999
• Allen Legere, November 19, 2005

Perhaps these are the people Justice Committee Chair Warren Allmand was referring to when he said:

"to keep them in for 25 years in my view is a waste of resources, a waste of a person's life ... Sometimes they catch their wives fooling around or vice versa and they kill and it's murder, but they've never committed another crime in their lives."

Of 43 cases heard as of March 31, 1994, 19 applicants were given permission to apply for parole and 13 had their period of ineligibility reduced. Eleven applications were rejected. (Hamilton Spectator, June 6, 1994) The range of clemency depended on the province. In 74% of cases the original sentence given for the crime of murder has been changed.

If you want these people back on the streets earlier than a judge and jury did, then do nothing. They will trickle out on their own. If you don't want them out early, then do any of the following:

• write, telephone and fax your MP and the members of the Justice Committee. Tell them to vote for Bill C-226 to repeal Section 745.
• contact CAVEAT for some postcards you can distribute to concerned people in your area.

'A Perfect Institutional Citizen'

Jon Rallo was convicted in 1977 of three charges of first degree murder in the deaths of his wife and two children. He was sentenced to three life terms with no parole for twenty-five years. As is frequently the case in Canada, the sentences are being served all at the same time.

In February, 1995, Mr. Rallo appeared before the courts, asking for a reduction in the time he must spend in prison before being eligible for parole, as is allowed by Section 745 of the Criminal Code.

The jury heard that during the seventeen years he has served in prison, Jon Rallo has been an ideal prisoner, earning privileges by carefully following all the rules.

For two-and-a-half days of the hearing, witness after witness was called to testify to his exemplary conduct and work habits. During his incarceration Mr. Rallo joined a self-help group for 'lifers', a holistic growth group, and an Italian culture group. He also performed office work at Kingston Penitentiary and at the Warkworth Institution, and earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in sociology.

Since 1986 he has been granted more than 20 escorted passes. His lawyer also stressed that psychiatric and psychological reports indicated that Jon Rallo at no time showed signs of depression or anxiety. This was interpreted to show that he was extremely stable and that, if released, he would not be a danger to himself or the public. The only aberration in his profile was that he showed an above-average need for control.

It is hard to reconcile this paragon of virtue with the man who, in 1976, brutally murdered his wife Sandra, 29, his son Jason, 6, and his daughter Stephanie, 5. As the Crown pointed out, nothing in Mr. Rallo's conduct before the murders suggested that he was capable of the deliberate and planned murder of his family. Similarly, his exemplary conduct while in prison did not preclude criminal behaviour out of prison.

He was a cool and collected person before he committed the crime. He is a cool and collected person today. Why should that be proof that he has changed at all in prison? Exemplary prison conduct in itself is not a guarantee of public safety.

The nature of the testimony on behalf of the applicant emphasized the great chasm that exists between the courts' and the public's attitudes to the nature and purposes of sentencing on the one hand, and the attitude of Corrections Canada, case workers, psychologists, and parole officers on the other.

It would seem that for Corrections 'experts', the rehabilitation of the offender is paramount. Mac Stienberg, of the Appeal Division of the National Parole Board, has been quoted as saying, '...give some of them six months of counselling and release them. They'll not kill again.'

However, in his charge to the jury, Justice Paul Philp stressed that they 'are required to set a balance between the consideration of leniency for a well-behaved convict... and the community interest in the continued repudiation of the type of conduct that led to these murders.'

This time the community won! The jury decided that the nature of the crimes was so horrible that no reduction of time to be served was possible. Jon Rallo will return to prison to continue serving his life sentence. He can apply for parole in the year 2002.

One unusual aspect of this hearing was the admission of victim testimony. Generally, the victim has no role in a judicial review hearing. However, over the objections of Mr. Rallo's lawyer, Justice Philp ruled that Mrs. Pollington, mother and grandmother of the victims, could give evidence on the impact of not knowing where Jason's body was hidden. She was not allowed to talk about the crime itself, but she was allowed to talk about the effect of Mr. Rallo's refusal to reveal the location of his son's body. Her powerful testimony moved several jury members to tears.

The very fact that such a hearing was taking place at all was resented by the Pollingtons and other members of the public. Mr. Pollington was quoted in the Globe and Mail: 'We've lost three kids and he's only served a sentence for one. And then they're prepared to reduce the sentence even further on the basis that he's been good and won't recommit'.

To their immense relief, the Pollingtons will be spared the possibility of another judicial review hearing. By setting August, 2002 as the date of any future application, the jury ensured that another judicial review of Mr. Rallo's sentence under Section 745 would not take place.

The jury's decision was a victory for common sense. However, the public cannot count on common sense to prevail every time. Indeed, most applicants have been successful in receiving a reduction in the number of years without eligibility for parole.

Section 745 must be repealed. The public's faith in the justice system is tenuous at best. The fact that a triple murderer has the right even to ask for review before serving twenty-five years tests that faith even further.

The Public's Right to Know or The Media's Right to Exploit?

The Toronto Star recently asked CAVEAT President Priscilla de Villiers to express her views on attempts by Canadian media agencies to have access to videotape evidence at the Bernardo trial in Toronto.
Her piece, published February 3, 1995, is reprinted below.

by Priscilla de Villiers

The French and Mahaffy families have requested that the courtroom be closed to the media while videotaped evidence of alleged acts committed by Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo against Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy are presented to the judge and the jury.

The media claim that they should be allowed to view the videotapes on the grounds of the public's right to know, even though we expect that oral evidence on this issue will be presented to the court during the course of Homolka's testimony. At no point have the families suggested that her testimony be sealed from the public.

As the mother of a daughter who was abducted and executed by a sexual sadist, I know only too well the hurt, fear and the torment that is still suffered by my daughter's friends, family and acquaintances.

I am no stranger to the images that rise when I am off-guard and which fill my nights with horror. Yet these images are the product of my imagination, based only on testimony of Jonathan Yeo's other victims during the Yeo inquest. No voyeurs have watched her final terror, or her gentle dignity crumble at the hands of a monster.

When my daughter, Nina, disappeared so suddenly from our lives, we, her family and friends and the community became victims, too. At the same time, we entered the public domain. It quickly became apparent that the victim is truly helpless in dealing with the media. The public's 'right to know' intrudes into our lives. We see our dignity and our privacy stripped away from us as well.

By and large the media of this country have treated Nina and our family with consideration and respect, for which we always will be so grateful. This is why I feel such a deep sense of betrayal that the responsible media of this country are prepared to use their combined might in the ongoing power struggle between the courts and the media to try to force the public exposure of the unutterable horrors that two innocent young women were forced to endure before they finally were murdered.

There is a strange difference in society's attitude to victims of violent crime and their families. Privacy and respect usually are accorded to people who are suffering from a terminal disease, who commit suicide or even die in a fiery car accident. Cameras are not thrust into the contorted faces of the dying to record their last minutes on Earth or track the relatives' and friends' expressions as they hear the awful news, or say their last goodbyes.

Yet, two bereaved families have to beg for this same consideration in a court of law because their children fell victim to violent crime. Their opponents are those who stand to make considerable profit from their tragedy, to say nothing of those members of the public who satiate their desire for sordid gossip by feasting on the misfortune of others.

It is with the calm resolve that characterizes the heroism of so many victims that two families are trying to uphold the tenets of the sanctity of the human spirit and the right of the dead to rest in dignity.

This is the heroic stand of parents who are protecting their daughters for the last time. It is also the heroic stand of people, tried beyond all reasonable endurance, who are protecting all Canadians from an indelible blot on their history.

I beg you all, media and public alike, to show some mercy in the name of compassion and human dignity.

Petitions in the Courtroom

by Priscilla de Villiers

Some days after my comments were published in the Toronto Star (see 'Public's Right to Know' on this page), I was interviewed by a reporter from the same newspaper. He asked two hypothetical questions; the first was so absurd that I did not want to give it credence by repeating it here.

The second question asked about CAVEAT's involvement in a petition which is being circulated by friends of Debbie Mahaffy's, seeking signatures to back the restriction of the videotapes in the courtroom.

I explained that we had not been asked to be involved, nor had we been informed that this petition was to be circulated. We first became aware of it when it arrived with our regular mail. However, we referred all requests that we received to the organizers, as we support the issue.

Persistent questioning about CAVEAT supporting it in the future led to a short article, distorted out of recognition by editing, I presume, headed by the inflammatory title: 'de Villiers Condemns Petition'. Nothing could have been further from the truth. CAVEAT as a grassroots national organisation could not circulate this petition in this case. As well, I had personally submitted an affidavit to the court to support the families. At no time did we condemn the efforts of private citizens.

This misunderstanding caused great concern and anguish to many of our members and other concerned people. Further discussion merely exacerbated the situation.

A letter, dated February 16, 1995, was sent to me by Tim Danson, legal counsel for the French and Mahaffy families:

"I was deeply distressed to read media reports stating that you were taking a position with respect to the Bernardo case that was contrary to the interests of my clients, Doug and Donna French and Dan and Deborah Mahaffy. Of course nothing could be farther from the truth...I was quite upset to see the media twist and distort some of your comments.

During our motion to obtain intervenor status on behalf of the Frenchs and the Mahaffys in the Bernardo proceedings, your contribution to our evidentiary record played an extremely important part in our being successful on the motion.

Petitions are often quite valuable in the political process as distinct from the legal process. In fact petitions simply have no role in the court room. That is, it would be most inappropriate for a Judge to rule one way or the other, based on how many names each party signs up on a petition. To try to influence the court by the use of petitions is untenable and therefore your comments with respect to the use of a petition with respect to the Bernardo case are completely correct and have my full support.

In fact if CAVEAT were part of an organized petition for the purpose of introducing same into the court proceedings, I would think that you would be discredited."

NEWSWATCH

Drunkenness: Ticket to Rape

A serious and disturbing matter has surfaced yet again in the courtrooms of Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada in a 6-3 judgment has said that extreme drunkenness can be a defence against a conviction of rape. A case [for the accused] can succeed only if [the defence] can convince a jury that the accused was so intoxicated that there was no way he could have known he was committing a sexual assault.

A majority of the Court believes the defence will be invoked only on the 'rarest of occasions'.

Since the Supreme Court's ruling, the drunkenness defence has been used successfully in at least three other cases.

To be successful, [the defence] would require in-court confirmation from medical experts. Mr. Justice Cory said that this decision was a narrow exception to the rule and necessary to avoid infringing on an accused's constitutional right to life, liberty and security of the person and to be presumed innocent.

The Justices who supported the ruling were: Justices Peter Cory, Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, Beverley McLachlin, Frank Iacobucci, Gerald La Forest and Chief Justice Antonio Lamer.

The Justices who dissented were: Justices John Sopinka, Charles Gontier and Jack Major. - from the Toronto Star, October 1, 1994


Issues:

• As Mr. Justice John Sopinka wrote when he dissented on the ruling, the main purpose of criminal law is the protection of the public. How do we, the public, protect ourselves from someone who voluntarily drinks himself into a state of irresponsibility?
  
  
• The two edged sword of justice: Many thousands of dollars are spent on education and public awareness programs in an effort to prevent drinking and driving. Drinking and driving is illegal, and the punishment is tough. How can the justice system state that extreme drunkenness is a valid defence against a conviction of sexual assault, but administer draconian sentences for convictions of extreme drunkenness while driving a car, even if the driver has not caused an accident or a death.

Murder acquittal by reason of cocaine psychosis

On January 25, 1994, the effects of voluntarily consumed mind-altering drugs were successfully used as a defence for murder.

Dale John Hicks was acquitted of a double murder charge by reason of cocaine psychosis. He was convicted of two counts of manslaughter in the brutal murders of two young women, sentenced to ten years for each count, and will serve the sentences concurrently.

He will be eligible for parole in 3.5 years, after serving one third of his sentence in prison. - from Surrey North Delta Now, May 21, 1994

Web Hosting by