"A COMPREHENSIVE QUESTIONNAIRE WILL BE SENT TO ALL 54 CROWN OFFICES IN ONTARIO TO DETERMINE IF PRIVACY RIGHTS HAVE BEEN BREACHED, SAID THE COMMISSIONER YESTERDAY IN OUTLINING THE DETAILS OF HER INVESTIGATION. "I WANT A SYSTEMIC RESPONSE," DR. ANN CAVOUKIAN SAID. "THE PUBLIC CAN THEN DECIDE IF WE NEED TO GO FURTHER, SUCH AS A JUDICIAL INQUIRY." THE SURVEY IS THE ONLY OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION INTO THE BACKGROUND CHECKS BY POLICE ON BEHALF OF THE CROWN."
REPORTER SHANNON KARI; NATIONAL POST;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background: In a previous post I asked: "Why didn't Ontario prosecutors examine Dr. Charles Smith's qualifications a bit more closely over the years, pay more attention to court decisions suggesting he was biased towards the Crown and that that his opinions were seriously flawed - or at least share the existence of these decisions with the defence?"
My answer was that some prosecutors cared more about winning the case than the possibility that an innocent person might be convicted;
I buttressed my response with the story recently broken by the National Post that prosecutors in several parts of Ontario have been asking police to do secret background checks on jurors.
This controversy has lead to numerous requests for mistrials and could result in a bids to open numerous cases where accused persons have been convicted in the shadow of the illegal practice which taints a criminal jury trial from the outset.
The Charles Smith Blog is very much concerned with the question as to how far prosecutors will go to win the case and therefore monitoring developments on a regular basis;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ontario Privacy Commissioner Ann Cavoukian's attempt to get answers about the extent of secret jury screen conducted at the request of the province's prosecutor's is the subject of a story in today's National Post by reporter Shannon Kari.
The story ran under the heading, "Crown offices to be surveyed on jury checks," and a sub-heading: "Public should 'have faith' in probe, Ontario's privacy chief says."
"The Ontario privacy commissioner is asking every Crown office in the province to report back and disclose if it conducted secret background checks on potential jurors in the past three years," the story begins;
"A comprehensive questionnaire will be sent to all 54 Crown offices in Ontario to determine if privacy rights have been breached, said the commissioner yesterday in outlining the details of her investigation," it continues;
""I want a systemic response," Dr. Ann Cavoukian said. "The public can then decide if we need to go further, such as a judicial inquiry."
The survey is the only outside investigation into the background checks by police on behalf of the Crown.
Police in Simcoe County in central Ontario have used databases for several years to find out details about people on jury lists, which would then be passed on to the prosecution, without informing the defence.
A mistrial was declared this month in a Windsor murder trial after it was disclosed that there were similar checks, a practice that the city's police chief later admitted was "routine" and part of a policy to find "quality" jurors.
The Ministry of the Attorney-General confirmed there was a similar issue that came up in a recent trial in Thunder Bay. Attorney-General Chris Bentley has refused to appoint an outside agency with subpoena power to investigate how many jury trials in Ontario were possibly tainted by the police inquiries. The privacy commissioner does not have subpoena power but she stated that the public should "have faith" in her investigation, which has the support of Mr. Bentley.
"I do not believe they will cover this up when we approach them," said Dr. Cavoukian, who will also send investigators to Windsor, Barrie and Thunder Bay.
The survey will focus on Crown practices dating back to March, 2006, when the ministry sent a memo to all prosecutors directing them not to ask police for anything other than criminal records checks and to disclose the information to the defence.
The province has not explained why it needed to send the memo, since the impropriety of background checks was made clear in a Supreme Court of Canada case eight years earlier. While it is important to look at any potential privacy violations, "who is going to look at the impact on the criminal justice system?" asked Kirk Munroe, one of the defence lawyers in the Windsor case where the mistrial was declared.
The 2006 memo "suggests there was a problem that may have been widespread" and there needs to be a proper judicial inquiry, with the power to make people testify under oath, Mr. Munroe said.
The Attorney-General has not said if any Crown attorney will be disciplined.
As well, the Law Society of Upper Canada which regulates lawyers in Ontario, declined to say if it has launched an investigation.
"The Law Society is aware of the reports of disclosure of jury information," said its treasurer Derry Millar. But he stated that it is under a "statutory obligation" not to make public any investigation unless there is a decision to proceed with a disciplinary hearing."
Harold Levy...Toronto Star;
