"The Crown also criticizes the findings of a report issued last fall by Ontario Privacy Commissioner Ann Cavoukian as based on "an inaccurate and incomplete understanding" of the jury selection process. The Cavoukian report found that one in three Crown offices did excessive background checks, which led Attorney-General Chris Bentley to stop the practice and make changes to the Juries Act.
But, for the first time since the practice was uncovered by the National Post last spring, the Crown is now arguing that some types of jury vetting are permitted. The suggestion is outlined in written arguments filed by the Crown this week in advance of the Ontario Court of Appeal hearing for Troy Davey, scheduled to begin June 28."
REPORTER SHANNON KARI: THE 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 is therefore monitoring developments on a regular basis;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"TORONTO - The Ontario government says it is acceptable for prosecutors to use any "personal knowledge" police officers have about potential jurors for help in selecting a jury," the National Post story by reporter Shannon Kari published earlier today under the heading, "Some types of jury vetting are acceptable: Crown," begins.
"Information already in officers' "minds" is not improper jury vetting and does not have to be disclosed to the defence, the Crown argues in the upcoming appeal of a young man convicted of killing a police officer in southern Ontario," the story continues.
"The Crown also criticizes the findings of a report issued last fall by Ontario Privacy Commissioner Ann Cavoukian as based on "an inaccurate and incomplete understanding" of the jury selection process. The Cavoukian report found that one in three Crown offices did excessive background checks, which led Attorney-General Chris Bentley to stop the practice and make changes to the Juries Act.
But, for the first time since the practice was uncovered by the National Post last spring, the Crown is now arguing that some types of jury vetting are permitted. The suggestion is outlined in written arguments filed by the Crown this week in advance of the Ontario Court of Appeal hearing for Troy Davey, scheduled to begin June 28
Davey, 24, is serving a life sentence for the 2004 murder of Cobourg police Constable Chris Garrett. Davey is seeking a new trial as a result of what his lawyers say were "illegal" probes of potential jurors.
Three weeks before a jury pool was supposed to come to court in the Davey trial, the lists were turned over to the Crown, in breach of the Juries Act. The lists were distributed to local police, who were asked for opinions on the "suitability" of potential jurors, based on their personal knowledge. Suitability was whether the individuals might be favourable to the Crown. Lists were returned with "good" "ok" or "no" next to dozens of names, which was not disclosed to the defence.
The assessments were not made as a result of searching confidential databases or any official investigation, notes Crown attorney John McInnes. "The collection of personal information in this case was not achieved by government action so much as by living of lives in Cobourg by the involved officers," he writes.
Both the prosecution and defence are permitted to make "legitimate inquiries" into prospective jurors' backgrounds, as long as there is no direct or indirect contact with individuals, says the Crown.
The prosecution is only obliged to share "concrete" information with the defence, not "the opinions" of anyone associated with the prosecution, argues Mr. McInnes.
The Privacy Commissioner "strongly disagrees" with that interpretation, its senior counsel, David Goodis, said Thursday. "Our findings were based on the source from which the Crown collected the information, such as police, not the format in which that information was held," he explained.
He said the Privacy Commissioner's report "speaks for itself " about what is an acceptable practice."
The story can be found at:
http://www.nationalpost.com/Some+types+jury+vetting+acceptable+Crown/3169140/story.html
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
