STOPWATCH - 1996, Volume III

"Books 'n Bullets"

Examining the Young Offenders Act

The CAVEAT Youth Council's recent public forum entitled, "Books 'n Bullets", conveyed a variety of viewpoints on the Young Offenders Act from those working within the justice system.

The Young Offenders Act is in desperate need of change to ensure it protects the at-risk youth it was designed to assist, attendees of a public forum were told on April 30, at Hamilton, Ontario's Westdale Secondary School.

"Programs for young people are sometimes there and sometimes not," panelist Dr. Alex Polgar noted.

Dr. Polgar is a forensic consultant who aided Maplehurst Correctional Institute in Milton in activating the Young Offenders Act.

Other panelists included Superintendent Bruce Elwood, of the Hamilton- Wentworth Regional Police, Phil Kyte of Dawn Patrol, an organization of group homes for troubled youth in Hamilton, and Derek Orr of the Correctional Service of Canada. They fielded questions posed by moderator Connie Smith, of CHCH-TV.

None of the panelists called for a complete overhaul of the Act, but all made it clear the objectives set out for the Act are not being met. The YOA is meant to provide programs to address certain deficits in young people until they mature. Dr. Polgar suggested that while the act is good on paper and in theory, it does not necessarily address what is fact. "We do not address these development problems [and] we will continue to have these repeat offenders," said Dr. Polgar.

Phil Kyte held the view that we do a disservice if we want to label someone as a young offender in society and not address some of the circumstances that kids come from. He stressed that young offenders come from all states in society and while young offenders as a group share similar problems, each also has unique problems, resulting in complex problems with complex answers.
Derek Orr informed the audience that the provincial government is responsible for administering the YOA, but for youth who are transferred to adult court and sent to an adult penal facility, there are no such young offender programs available.

Bruce Elwood stated that youth crime had not increased in the last two years, but suggested there has been a significant increase in the level of violence associated with youth crime. Hamilton Police, with a more community-based service, are now involved not only to arrest offenders, but also to assess what is causing the problem. They have appointed a Scholastic Liaison Officer who works in the schools to address the problems where they often begin.

The forum was sponsored by the CAVEAT Youth Council, which is comprised of over 40 area high school students. "The goal of the forum," said co-organizer Melissa Crawford, "is to promote effective communication and problem solving among youth." She said this was in keeping with the objective of the Youth Council, which is to predominantly foster initiatives in violence prevention among youth, pertaining particularly to youth issues.

Ms. Crawford declared the forum a success. "We had many take this new knowledge back to the schools and community centres and teach youth about it [the Act]."

Connie Smith applauded the young people who spearheaded the Books 'n Bullets Forum. She said that by involving our youth in a solution, we are ahead of the game.

Ms. Crawford believes that involvement in a solution to violent crime and justice is a key way to keep kids out of trouble. "Being active in change for society makes you want a better society, makes you want to stop being part of the problem."

The forum was one way in which area youth could get involved, she says. "These events are important to get kids to care about these issues, and that's why we won't stop with one."

The CAVEAT Youth Council has been operating for over a year, and is looking for new members. If you are interested in joining, please contact CAVEAT.

CRY Reports, "Justice System in Disrepute"

The following is a reprint of a press release issued by Chuck Cadman of CRY (Crime Responsibility & Youth). CRY was formed in 1993 by the parents and friends of 16-year-old Jesse Cadman who was murdered by another 16-year-old in an unprovoked, random attack.

In May of 1994, Isaac Deas was convicted of the second degree murder of Jesse Cadman on October 18, 1992. In June of 1994, BC Supreme Court Judge Ross Lander sentenced Deas to the mandatory life term without eligibility for parole for ten years ­ the maximum allowable for a young offender convicted in adult court. On December 1, 1995, amendments to the Young Offenders Act (YOA) reduced that parole ineligibility to a fixed maximum of seven years. Today, April 2, 1996, almost two years after his conviction and three and one half years after the murder, the BC Court of Appeal granted Deas a three year reduction in his parole ineligibility period. The reason ­ the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, "a convicted person whose appeal has not yet been decided must receive the benefit of any newly legislated REDUCTION in sentencing provisions."

Legislated INCREASES in sentencing cannot be made retroactive.
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first reduction granted on appeal resulting from the retroactive nature of the YOA amendments. Since the amendments took force, Carol Gisby's killer, John Benedek, and Thomas Greenman's killers, Ryan Watson and Darren Humphries, have all benefited upon conviction from the more lenient sentencing provision even though their crimes were committed years before the legislation was enacted. The teenagers charged with the murders of Graham Niven, Jeanne Richter, Jody Larson, Trygve Magnusson and others are still before the courts. If convicted, they will also benefit. These cases only represent B.C.

Preceding the 1993 federal election and in the years since, the government, while promoting prevention and pro-activity (both of which we support wholeheartedly) resolved to "get tougher" with violent young offenders. If more lenient sentencing for the worst of crimes, murder, is an indication of that resolve then, in our opinion, they have perpetrated a blatant fraud on the people of Canada. Furthermore, by making that leniency retroactive reveals nothing short of utter contempt for the people whom they are suppose to represent and a cold indifference toward victims of violent crime.

We do not need errors by trial judges or prosecutors to bring the system into disrepute. The federal government and the Supreme Court of Canada are doing that all by themselves.

For more information on CRY, call (604) 599-3888 or 1-800-CRY-1992

Surrey, B.C. ­ Site of CAVEAT Youth Challenge '96

"Our children and youth make up the single largest group of victims in Canada. Our youth have a code of silence which prevents them from dealing with issues. We must get through to them if there is to be a healthy tomorrow," said Shane Tuckey on May 15, 1996 at CAVEAT BC's second annual "Evening with CAVEAT". Shane, an RCMP member and CAVEAT BC's Youth Challenge Program Director, has been involved for a number of years with youth working to prevent violence.

The effort of youth empowering themselves and others to recognize and eliminate violence is an important one. And so, on October 21, 1996, CAVEAT BC will host Youth Challenge 1996­a violence prevention conference for students­at the Sheraton Guildford in Surrey, B.C. In addition to a full day of public speakers and workshops there will be a presentation of the annual CAVEAT Youth Awards.

Do you know of a young person, or persons, working to make a difference? Here is an opportunity to recognize that deserving someone through CAVEAT's Youth Awards!

CAVEAT each year recognizes youth who have demonstrated a dedication to the prevention and elimination of violence. Nominations for the awards may be made from anywhere in Canada. Recipients from British Columbia will receive their awards at the Youth Challenge Conference, while others will receive their awards at a CAVEAT event in their area or by mail.

Nominee(s) must be 10 - 19 years of age, and will have worked towards the prevention of violence through an individual act and/or through involvement in a program or project aimed at helping to stop violence in their community.

Here's What To Do

• Complete the CAVEAT Youth Award Nomination Form below;
  
• Include reasons why you feel this individual(s) is deserving (2 pages maximum);
  
• Ensure that the nominee has been notified of your nomination; and
  
• Mail or fax nominations to the CAVEAT office nearest you (see addresses on nomination form).

Nominations must be received by September 30, 1996.

It's probable that the fine work many of our youth are doing towards the prevention and elimination of violence is not recognized or acknowledged frequently enough. Here's our chance to tell them that we appreciate their efforts. Send your nomination today!

The Cocaine Made Me Do It

Much to the disgust of many Canadians, the "cocaine-made-me-crazy" defence is being used successfully by killers to escape murder convictions.

While drunkenness has always been considered a mitigating factor, only in the last few years has cocaine-induced psychosis been used to gain a manslaughter conviction instead of a second-degree murder conviction. Before anyone can be found guilty of first or second degree murder the Crown must prove that the accused intended to kill the victim. If the accused can prove that he was irrational due to substance abuse and that he did not intend to kill, he must be found innocent of second degree murder.

In November, 1992 Dale Hicks, while high on cocaine, murdered Laurie Wood, the 33-year-old mother of three, and Karen Rainey who was four months pregnant at the time. Ms. Rainey was stabbed seventeen times and Ms. Wood, who had apparently tried to help her room-mate, was stabbed 6 times. Hicks was charged with second degree murder.
Hicks testified that he was under the influence of cocaine and that he did not remember killing the women. He maintained that he had blacked out and woke to find blood all over the place.The defence claimed that his prolonged and excessive use of the drug resulted in a state of cocaine induced psychosis and that Hicks, therefore, was incapable of forming the intent to kill. Cocaine, the "demon drug", was the killer, and not Dale John Hicks!

Justice Ray Paris seemed to buy it. He instructed the jury that they would have to acquit Hicks if they thought that he was unaware of his actions.

The jury seemed to buy it. Following the instructions of the judge they reduced the charge by deciding that Hicks intended to assault the victims and not kill them. Hicks was found guilty of two counts of the lesser crime of manslaughter rather than second degree murder.

Justice Ray Paris sentenced Hicks to 10 years for each killing. The sentences were to be served concurrently (at the same time) which means that he will be eligible for parole after serving one third or a little more than three years. To add insult to injury, Hicks appealed his sentence, claiming it was excessive and unfair.

The controversial case has triggered a debate about personal responsibility. Is the law correct in allowing intoxication as a defence? Crown counsel Sean Madigan pointed out that the public would be amazed that cocaine consumption reduces murder to manslaughter. Indeed it does seem odd that a killer gets a break because he voluntarily consumed an illegal drug! One is reminded of the old joke about the killer who murdered his parents and then used his state as an orphan to plead for the court's mercy! Chuck Cadman, a Surrey man whose son was murdered in 1992, cited the verdict and sentence as "a perfect example of the value our courts place on a human life and the extent to which they will go to accommodate the criminal."

Reform MP Val Meredith raised the case in the House of Commons and spoke for many members of the public when she expressed concerns that "accountability and responsibility are being removed from the offender." She asked Justice Minister Rock to change the law so that substance abuse cannot be used as an excuse for murder.

The Drunkenness Defence

The drunkenness defence has become an issue of great controversy in our present justice system. In September 1994, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that self-induced, extreme intoxication could be used as a defence against assault and sexual assault in addition to the already existing possibility of using the defence against a murder charge. The Court stated that it is possible that a person could become so drunk that that person could lack the necessary mental capacity to form the intent to commit such a crime.

The drunkenness defence was to be used only on the rarest of occasions. However, it was used successfully in three cases immediately after the Supreme Court's decision. The public soon realized that the defence could lead to acquittals in crimes of violence, particularly against women and children. Due to the public outcry, Justice Minister Allan Rock introduced Bill C-72 designed to set limits. His bill stated that individuals accused of violent crimes, such as sexual assault and violence against women would not be permitted to use the drunkenness defence. "People cannot be permitted to hide behind drunkenness or other forms of intoxication to escape responsibility for their criminal conduct" said Rock (The Hamilton Spectator February, 1995).

Some argue that the defence is used only rarely, considering the number of offenders who are drunk when they commit an offence. However, it is important to examine the principle behind the defence to assess its validity. For the drunkenness defence to succeed the jury must be convinced that the accused were in a state of automatism. In other words, they were too drunk to know what they were doing or even that they were doing it. However, this state of mind was caused by those individuals consuming the alcohol of their own will!

CAVEAT argues that if people consume alcohol, they should be responsible for their actions while under its influence.To suggest that an individual can consume alcohol, but not be responsible for their actions while drunk is ludicrous. The Highway Traffic Act states that a person who operates a vehicle while drunk will be charged with drunk driving even if there is no accident and no one is hurt. In other words, the zero tolerance rule applies. Yet the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that if a person drinks excessively, that person is not responsible or accountable for their actions in the event that a crime is committed under the Criminal Code.

Perhaps the law would be better understood and accepted if there was accountability for the crimes that one commits while drunk, especially if it is a violent crime against an innocent victim. The protection of the public should be the first concern. We must never overlook the danger to the potential victim and the severity of the crime just because the person was a self-induced drunk!

CAVEAT does not suggest that it is impossible that people could drink themselves into a state where they do not know what they are doing. However, the law must protect the public from those who do drink to uncontrollable limits.

The law must have a mechanism to deal with individuals who are found not guilty of murder due to extreme drunkenness. A conviction of manslaughter is not enough because it minimizes the responsibility of the accused and results in a lesser sentence indicating that the alcohol was to blame and not the individual who consumed the alcohol in the first place. The law must send the message that extreme drunkenness is not an excuse to commit crimes and people who do commit crimes while drunk must be accountable for their actions. The public does not want to see these offenders back in society ready to commit a similar offence.

CAVEAT Alberta Reports

Victims of Crime Legislation - Will it Become a Reality in Alberta?

In the Speech from the Throne in February, 1996, the Government of Alberta announced that it intends to introduce legislation that would ensure rights for victims of violent crime.

Justice Minister Brian Evans hinted that he intends to use a previous bill, Bill 214, as well as bills from other provinces and countries as guidelines in drafting his proposed legislation.

Bill 214, The Victims of Violence Act, had been introduced in the previous session of the legislature by MLA Bonnie Laing and had passed two readings. Unfortunately, it died on the table with the close of the session.

CAVEAT Alberta has submitted victims' rights information, including CAVEAT's SafetyNet 1994 Final Report, The B.C. Victims of Crime Act, and the proposed Ontario Victims Bill of Rights, to the Alberta Justice Department.

Victims' Needs Focus of Forum

Interested guests learned about victims rights' at a recent CAVEAT public forum in Edmonton. Speakers included:

­ Ms. Barbara Pratt, Manager of Community and Police Intervention Programs for the Alberta Justice Department. Ms. Pratt gave an overview of programs available to victims through Alberta Justice, including current policies regarding victim impact statements and how such programs are funded.

­ Ms. Terry King, a five-year veteran volunteer crisis worker with the Victims' Services Unit of the Edmonton Police Services. Ms. King explained the services offered through her unit and gave some concrete examples of why victims need validating in legislation.

­ Ms. Colette Mandin-Kossowan, Chair, CAVEAT Alberta. Ms. Mandin Kossowan acquainted the audience with the Alberta government's initiatives concerning Victims' Rights Legislation.

­ Nettie Barton, a special volunteer with CAVEAT Alberta. Ms. Barton received a beautiful bouquet of flowers as a token of appreciation. We value the time and dedication you have given to CAVEAT Alberta, Nettie. Thank you for a productive first year.

We would also like to thank Mr. and Mrs. Innocent, W.C. Kay Gold and Gem Merchants, and Wildbird General Store for their generous support of CAVEAT Alberta.

Victims' Support Group Wants to Help

Joyce Farion of CAVEAT Alberta has started a support group for families who have lost someone through murder. If you are interested, please call CAVEAT Alberta for further information (403) 464-9935.

Domestic Violence: Behind Closed Doors

Domestic violence has been described as a 'private' crime perpetrated behind closed doors. Until recently, it has been treated with a hands-off casualness by the justice system.

One Woman's Story of Betrayal by an Abusive Husband and the Justice System

Why is there a greater tolerance of domestic violence than there is of other acts of violence simply because the perpetrator knows the victim or was "goaded" into hurting a partner?

Domestic violence has been described as a private crime perpetrated behind closed doors even after the abuse reaches levels so intolerable that the police become involved. Until recently, domestic violence has been treated with a hands-off casualness by the justice system. Charges were frequently dropped and the victim went on living in fear, hoping that some inadvertent word or action of hers did not set off a violent tirade that ended in her being severely beaten, or worse, left for dead. A woman's private problems within a relationship were hers alone to deal with. While a victim may be a man or a woman, the victim of domestic violence is most often the female partner.

Today, police units across Canada automatically lay charges in cases of suspected domestic violence even if the victim pleads for another chance for the abuser. Unfortunately, however, not enough is being done to improve the situation. Restraining orders have traditionally been hard to obtain and even more difficult to patrol. Judgments at trial frequently favour the abuser. Women die as a result.

Police see the need to treat domestic violence as the dangerous crime that it is. Help in the form of battered women's residences allow women and their children the opportunity to walk away. Residence staff also offer the professional counselling that is required by women as they make the transition. But until all sectors of the justice system take the inherent danger of domestic abuse seriously, women will continue to be murdered by their partners.

Abuse does not usually begin with a vicious punch or aggressive slap. In some relationships abuse is not even suspected in the beginning. When it does escalate and results in physical injury, some women are surprised. They even blame themselves for causing the explosion, and attempt to be on their best behaviour to prevent further aggression. Women are often mortified when they realize that they are in life threatening danger from the very person they married for love. She is powerless to understand what has happened and confused about how she 'got herself into such a mess'. She finds herself struggling to deal with emotions such as loneliness, anger, guilt and embarrassment, and is afraid to admit her problem to anyone. However, she often needs a friend to help her break away from her hopeless entanglement.

Lives are clearly at stake when women remain in such volatile situations, but furthermore the ripple effect of the abuse itself on the victim and any children witnessing violence costs our communities significantly, not only in the quality of the lives of its citizens, but also in the enormous costs of repairing the physical and psychological damages inflicted. Children who have had to live with the horror of seeing violence in their home, where they should feel safe, suffer untold agony. Some even become abusers themselves.

The tragic death of Donna Galbuogis illustrates the full horror of domestic violence.

Donna married her childhood sweetheart. The marriage always had an element of domineering and controlling behaviour from her husband Tony, but she could never have predicted that her ideal union would lead to her violent death. The domineering became violent verbal and physical abuse, and Donna realized her life was in danger and decided that she must leave Tony. She was, by profession, a paralegal in a Toronto law firm and she knew the law. She knew her rights. She knew where she should be able to get help. She knew the right questions to ask the authorities. But she could not save her own life. On May 24, 1995, Donna was brutally murdered by her recently estranged and abusive husband. He subsequently drove to Oakville, Ontario and took his own life.

Tony had assaulted and threatened to kill Donna with a butcher knife in January, 1995. While he was loading his gun during the attack, she escaped and went to the police station seeking help and protection. Tony, still in possession of the gun, was arrested three days later. Bail was granted even though he had been carrying a gun which he had intended to use to kill. Bail was set at $5000 with conditions. Restraining orders were put in place restricting him from being in York Region or visiting the family home in Newmarket, and he was released from custody. Donna's hell continued. She expressed concerns for her life many times to the Crown Attorney, stating that Tony needed intensive counselling or he would kill her as he said he would. She believed that he was receiving counselling, but no one had jurisdiction over Tony's wanderings, and he was free to move about as he pleased or attend counselling if he decided to. Donna, a concerned, caring person, preferred to see Tony in counselling for his problems rather than being incarcerated. She was aware that necessary counselling would not be an option for him if he was kept in jail awaiting his trial. Unfortunately, as Donna had predicted, Tony broke his restraining orders, drove to Newmarket, cut the telephone wire and broke into her home. He beat her and stabbed her repeatedly, slashing her throat, killing her. The coroner indicated that Donna's death was slow and agonizing.

Authorities blamed society for the violence that Donna had to endure and suggested that society in general must ensure that men like Tony carry out the conditions of their bail. The community can only be part of the solution if there are laws in place to deal with the problem and are implemented without discrimination.

The word 'domestic' does not render a situation any less dangerous. It merely suggests that the abuser is a danger only to the abused partner, and the public is not at risk. This fact should not make the victim any less important in the scheme of things. Wives and partners as individuals are as important as the collective public. 'Domestic' simply identifies the victim, making it easier to protect that person.The justice system must be accountable for the laws it administers. Bail is a very important part of our legal system, but we must ensure stricter enforcement of bail conditions and protection for potential victims. A wife or partner is a vital member of the community ­ a part of the public. And that one life is important and deserves to be protected.

Suggested Reading:
Dangerous Domains: Violence Against Women in Canada
by Holly Johnson. Published in 1996 by Nelson Canada, a division of Thomson Canada Limited, 1120 Birchmount Rd., Scarborough, Ontario, M1K 5G4

Using Tools of Awareness to Help Prevent Domestic Violence

Dawna Speers, an active and dedicated CAVEAT member, has developed a programme to be used by community groups as an educational tool in the area of abusive relationships. Her interest in the subject is a personal one.
The catalyst for Dawna's mission was her daughter, Monica's experiences with an abusive boyfriend and her subsequent death at his hands in October, 1991.

"Monica met Adam when she was 16. At first he seemed nice enough. He took her out; he bought her nice things and appeared to be conscious of her lack of self-confidence. Adam talked her into moving in with him. Monica was happy with her new life, but her happiness did not last long. Eventually Adam began to change. He began to attack her self esteem by concentrating on her weak points. He removed her from her friends and family by insisting they move away from Toronto. He refused to have a telephone, making it difficult for Monica to keep in touch with her family. By isolating her he controlled what she did, where she went, and to whom she spoke. She became very dependent on him. Adam made her financially dependent on him by demanding that she hand over her paycheck. Eventually Monica worked up the courage to leave him, but returned when he threatened to commit suicide. The abuse worsened; the dominating and controlling behaviour escalated. She left again and returned to the Toronto area to be near her family. A month later Adam broke into her apartment. He killed Monica, stabbing her 13 times."

­ Excerpts from "Monica's Story"

From her extensive research in the area of domestic abuse Dawna learned that Monica's relationship with Adam was a classic example of an abusive relationship. All the danger signs were there: isolation, intimidation, domination, and emotional, sexual and economic abuse. All are symptomatic of a relationship in which one partner is driven by a deep need for control and power.

Since her daughter's death, Dawna has dedicated her time and energy to her commitment to generate a public awareness of these warning signals. Dawna keeps Monica's story alive in order that others might learn from it. Reliving the tragedy is painful. However, if Monica's story can prevent any further tragedies, something positive might result from her brutal, senseless murder.

Numerous speaking engagements in schools and communities have made Dawna aware of the need that exists for information on this most serious and pressing issue. To meet this need she has compiled the material she uses in her presentations in a user-friendly format. The booklet, entitled Tools of Awareness, is an educational tool that can be used by schools and community groups in their domestic violence prevention initiatives. It includes questionnaires which help people to identify danger signs in their own relationships and to recognize aggressive and controlling behaviour. Most importantly, the material is directed at not only the abused but also the abuser who must learn that this type of behaviour is unacceptable and that he/she probably needs to seek help.

Tools of Awareness will be available to the public for a nominal fee. For further information contact CAVEAT.

Slow Judicial System Takes its Toll on Victims

This past February Michael Foote was convicted of second degree murder in the death of Raymond Foss, the 24-year-old son of CAVEAT volunteers Leona Scott and her husband Rick of Edmonton. On October 7, 1993, in Cranbrook, B.C., Raymond was savagely beaten with a baseball bat by Michael Foote. He died the next day.

Raymond's family had expected the judicial system to act quickly and to swiftly bring the accused to justice. After all, there was no question that the accused had committed the crime. There were witnesses and Foote was prepared to plead guilty to manslaughter. Like many other victims however, they were to discover that justice does not move swiftly. Even though Foote was arrested the day of the brutal attack, the trial did not take place until February, 1996. Ray's mother, Leona, had to endure over two years of despair and frustration with a justice system so ponderous that a swift conclusion seemed to be impossible even in what appeared to be an open and shut case.

The case is a classic example of what victims find frustrating about our justice system. Michael Foote was denied bail initially, but in a review hearing Madame Justice Gill decided that Foote would not be a threat to the public and released him on a $20,000 bond. The family and friends of Ray found it particularly difficult to understand how someone accused of second degree murder could be released on bail to enjoy life, spend Christmas with his family, and even get married.

The plodding rate of progress was baffling and infuriating. A preliminary hearing was set for February, 1994, but, because Michael Foote decided to change lawyers, the hearing had to be postponed to May 30, 1994. At this hearing, the original charge of first degree murder was downgraded to second degree. The tentative trial date was set for February 27, 1995. As the time for the trial neared, however, the defence decided that Foote would not get a fair trial in Cranbrook. Their application for a change of venue was granted. The trial would begin in Vancouver on October 30, 1995. However, once again the trial had to be adjourned when one of Mr. Foote's lawyers became unavailable for that date because of an illness in the family. This time the trial was set for February 12, 1996 ­ over two years after the crime! Moreover, because of a backlog in the Vancouver courts, the venue was changed again. Ray's family would have to travel to Nelson, B.C. to attend the trial.

Apart from the devastating delays caused by remands, adjournments, and postponements, the victims also have to accept the fact that there is no role for them in the judicial process. The victims are seen as spectators, not participants. While generous legal aid plans are available to the accused, no such support exists for the victim. Leona would have to cover the expenses of attending the trial herself. Crown Counsel advised her that while the Crown is responsible for the expenses incurred by the witnesses involved in a trial, people who attend as spectators, including the family, have to pay their own way.

Apart from illustrating the difficulties victims face in attending hearings and trials held far from home, this case illustrates the difficulties they face in obtaining information. Leona, at the lowest ebb of her life from having to come to terms with her son's brutal slaying, had to search for information regarding the progress of her son's killer through the court system via expensive long-distance phone calls to Victoria.

Leona's situation was not unique and the issues she raises must be addressed. There is a serious need for a national set of standards for victims' services, victim information, and a national process which allows victims to participate in the court process.

CAVEAT's SafetyNet conferences have made several recommendations in the area of victims' rights that would improve a justice system which has been largely unresponsive to victims' needs. Chief among these rights is the right of the victim to be informed and kept informed of the scope, nature, timing, and progress of all court proceedings. CAVEAT also believes that victims, as well as the accused, must have the right to a speedy trial. The devastating effect of delays and adjournments on the victims must be considered.

Michael Foote was sentenced to life in prison with no parole for 10 years (the minimum sentence for second degree murder). The Foss family had hoped that this would be the end of the long drawn-out process, but it was not to be. In May, Mr. Foote appealed his conviction. The ordeal continues.

Starting a Petition?

When a great deal of work is done and the work cannot be recognized, it is a great shame. Unfortunately, this happens on occasion when a well meaning person collects signatures on a petition which requests action on the part of the federal government. It is therefore important to know that there are guidelines to follow to ensure that all the hard work is not in vain.

The de Villiers petition, signed by almost three million Canadians, was successfully presented to the House of Commons in February, 1994. To ensure that success, CAVEAT followed very precise directions in its drafting and circulation. A petition cannot be presented to the House of Commons unless it has first been submitted by a Member of Parliament to the Clerk of Petitions for certification. Thus it is imperative that the petitioner contact his (her) M.P. to ensure that both agree in principle with the request.

In order to be certified by the Clerk of Petitions, the petition must meet certain requirements established by the rules and practices of the House. The rules specify the type of paper to be used, to whom the petition is to be addressed, the language to be used, the fact that the petition must not be altered from the original form and that no other matter is to be included with it. Furthermore, the subject of the petition must be one that is within the authority of the Parliament of Canada.

Since the petition is a request rather then a demand or insistence, it must contain what is referred to as a "prayer". A statement of grievance or opinion alone cannot be received as a petition. The "prayer" should be clear and to the point and may include any details which the petitioner deems important to the request, but again must not demand or insist upon action. The request should avoid asking a favour that would require the expenditure of funds.

In collecting signatures, it is necessary that some signatures appear on the first sheet with the "prayer". Subsequent sheets of paper must have the subject matter of the petition imprinted on them. The petition must contain a minimum of 25 valid signatures and addresses and must not include the signature of any Member of Parliament.

Each petitioner must sign his or her name directly on the petition and must not sign for anyone else. No photocopying of signatures or taped or pasted signatures will be allowed. If a person is ill or disabled and wishes to sign, it must be noted on the petition and the note signed by a witness. All petitioners must include their address, written on the petition, not pasted or reproduced, giving either their full address or their city and province.

Anyone who lives in Canada may sign, but aliens may not sign.

Complete details can be obtained through the Clerk of Petitions, Private Members' Business, (613) 992-9511.

A Game of Love to End Violence

It was a game of love to end violence. Once again the Chris Pridham Invitational Tennis Tournament and Auction was a great success both in terms of the fine tennis offerings and the amount of money raised to support CAVEAT.

The spectacular evening, organized by Susan Pridham, Elaine Keire, Deb Swire and an enthusiastic team of CAVEAT volunteers gave tennis enthusiasts the opportunity to meet and watch tennis great Ken Rosewall match up with local tennis pros to demonstrate some of the shots that made him a world legend in tennis competition.

Ken teamed with local pros Brian Millar, Sam Rifaat and Moe Vijayakumar to present a rousing display of men's doubles tennis.

Aside from experiencing a once in a lifetime exhibition of tennis greats from different eras playing together, the spectators also had the opportunity to hear the banter of friendly kibitzing amongst the players and umpire Jeff Lumby of Y95 Radio who all wore microphones to amplify their comments during the matches. The chatter added immensely to the spirit of the evening and encouraged quips from those in the audience who spend many hours on court with the pros trying to improve their game. It was evident that the local pros, Brian, Sam and Moe, each have an enthusiastic fan club of their own, and can take as much chiding as they can hand out. As usual, however, they did not let their students get the upper hand.

Helen Kelesi, one of Canada's world-ranked women tennis professionals who recently recovered from brain surgery, joined Ken, Chris Pridham and Sonja Jeyaseelan, a budding tennis competitor from Ontario Racquets Club, in a spirited mixed doubles match much to the delight of the audience.

What's New

CAVEAT Meets With Justice Committee

On May 6, 1996, CAVEAT President Priscilla de Villiers and CAVEAT Alberta Chair Colette Mandin-Kossowan attended a meeting in Ottawa called by officials of the Department of Justice. Priscilla and Colette, along with members of other victims groups, were asked to participate in a discussion of Section 745 of the Criminal Code which allows murderers to apply for a review of the parole eligibility part of their sentences. The changes to the section that Justice Minister Rock has been promising for months have still not materialized.

Good Bye, Dorothy

CAVEAT wishes to announce the resignation of Dorothy Leonard, Executive Director of CAVEAT. Dorothy, an original member of CAVEAT, was instrumental in encouraging Priscilla de Villiers to petition the government to change the laws that pertain to violent crime. "You draft the petition and I will help you circulate it," said Dorothy, never realizing that it would consume the next four years of her life. As CAVEAT grew, it became necessary to have a formal office, and so Dorothy became its first paid employee, with duties that included setting up an office, and performing the day to day organization. She also acted as a spokesperson, taking part in talk shows, numerous speaking engagements and media interviews.

After a short break from a very demanding job, Dorothy hopes to begin using her talents in the corporate world. Thank you, Dorothy, for your hard work to ensure a safer, peaceful and more just society for all Canadians.

This 'must attend' performance for tennis buffs also attracted a fair number of collectors and shoppers who found, in the wide array of merchandise, sports collectibles, such as autographed items from Wayne Gretzky, Andre Agassi, Pete Sampras, Doug Gilmour, and other fine donated auction items very much to their liking.

The guests of honour, Ken Rosewall who has won over 32 singles and 18 doubles titles, including 18 Grand Slam wins, and Helen Kelesi join an impressive list of tennis greats, including John Lloyd, Dick Stockton, Roy Emerson, and the late Vitas Gerulaitis, who have entertained CAVEAT supporters in recent years.

CAVEAT would like to extend its heartfelt thanks to a former Canadian tennis champion and Davis Cup player Chris Pridham for his support over the past four years. The Chris Pridham Invitational has been one of the sustaining fundraising activities for our organization.

Upcoming Events

Swimming for CAVEAT, July and August, 1996, Ontario

On July 26 and 27, Colleen Shields will swim off Tobermory, Ont. (28 miles), and on August 9 &10, Nicole Mallette will swim Lake Ontario from Niagara-on-the-Lake to Toronto (32 miles). Promotional events for each of these swims will be held to raise funds for CAVEAT. Watch the newspapers for further information or call Deb at CAVEAT (905) 632 1733.

CAVEAT Day at the du Maurier Open, August 19, 1996, Toronto, Ontario

Join us for an exciting day of world class tennis at the National Tennis Centre, York University. Meet some of the ATP Tour players at a special marquee reception for CAVEAT guests. Tickets are $7.50 each or $20 each for special seating. Day and/or evening tickets available. To order your tickets or for more information, call CAVEAT at (905) 632-1733.

CAVEAT Youth Challenge 1996, October 21, Surrey, B.C.

CAVEAT BC will host a violence prevention conference for local students (see article on page 2 of this STOPWATCH).

CAVEAT's New Gift Catalogue

We are about to embark on a new fund-raising project that will benefit both CAVEAT and the many Canadian artists, craftsmen and home business people who believe in CAVEAT's goals.

We are hoping to have available by Fall '96, a top-notch gift catalogue to be mailed right across Canada. Incredibly, just by word of mouth, the response from potential suppliers has been tremendous.

Our gift catalogue will have limited edition prints, fleece clothing, jewellery, personalized shirts, photographic reprints, hand-painted stationery, mini-prints, jewelled boxes, scarves, appliqued shawls ... and lots more.

Talented people from across Canada will have the opportunity to sell their products through our catalogue and all of us will be winners!

We are looking to include items which will be interesting, unique, reasonably priced and easy to ship. Perhaps you or someone you know would be more than thrilled to be part of this project. Let us know right away. Call, fax or write to Maddy at CAVEAT, Burlington, Ontario. Include as many details as possible. We will follow up on your leads. And next year, we will be saying, "Thank you for shopping at CAVEAT!"

Web Hosting by