Thursday, September 26, 2013

Amina Chaudhari: Ontario; Woman convicted of strangling an eight-year-old Toronto boy to death meets resistance in bid for a declaration requiring evidence to be retained in all murder cases until a person dies; Law Times;


 COMMENTARY: "How long should the Crown have to keep evidence? Innocence Project seeks declaration to preserve until accused dies," by Yamri Taddese, published by the Law Times on September 23, 2013.  (Former pathologist Charles Smith testified for the prosecution in this case which involves missing autopsy photos. HL.);

GIST: "Years back, the court convicted Chaudhary of strangling an eight-year-old Toronto boy to death. The forensic expert at the time, Dr. Charles Smith, also referred to injuries to the boy’s head that he said were a result of blunt-force trauma. When Smith was describing the location of the bruise on the boy’s head, the judge interjected to ask if he was saying it was halfway back along the skull.
“Yes,” Smith replied. “We have photographs of that, which might be better than my description.” Now that those photographs are missing, Chaudhary reasonably fears that the investigative file in her case has also disappeared, Young argued. “The failure to preserve impacts on her liberty.”.........The missing photos are a travesty, Young told the Ontario Court of Appeal last week, but he’s not dwelling on the past. If any other evidence goes missing, the court should hold the government liable through a constitutional declaration that requires it to preserve evidence until the accused dies, he argued on Wednesday. Current practices around the retention of evidence in criminal cases fall short, said Young, and a declaration in Chaudhary’s favour could have a significant impact on cases where someone alleges a wrongful conviction years later.........The attorney general of Ontario argued Chaudhary’s claim isn’t justiciable. “As Dambrot J. concluded, the appellant’s claim is contrary to the constitutional standards that govern evidence retention. The Supreme Court and this honourable court have stated that the pretrial loss of potentially exculpatory evidence will not violate Charter s. 7 if the Crown provides an adequate explanation for the loss,” wrote Robert Charney, counsel for the attorney general. “It cannot be correct that a convicted offender who has exhausted the appeal process is entitled to a higher standard of evidence retention than an accused person before trial.” Chaudhary’s claim is also “moot in any event” because Dambrot said he wouldn’t have awarded the declaration even if there had been a Charter breach because current policies require the permanent retention of autopsy photographs, Charney suggested."

The entire commentary can be found at:

http://www.lawtimesnews.com/201309233477/headline-news/how-long-should-crown-have-to-keep-evidence

 PUBLISHER'S NOTE:

Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.

I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located  near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.

The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:

http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith

Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:

http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html

Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com