"The Crown who prosecuted the case maintained the background checks were to ensure potential jurors were impartial. The information obtained through the police search of confidential databases was not disclosed to the defence, because it was “trial preparation material,” the court was told.
The explanation was rejected by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, which noted that the Supreme Court of Canada stressed nearly twenty years ago that a jury should not appear to favour one side over the other.
“The failure to disclose the information, in the circumstances of this trial, gave the Crown an unfair advantage that actually impacted on the selection of the jury,” wrote Justice Duncan Beveridge, with Justices Nancy Bateman and Linda Oland concurring.
Nova Scotia court orders new trial because of police jury vetting
The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal says jury vetting is improper because the Supreme Court of Canada has stated that a jury should not appear to favour one side over the other."
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 - and in Nova Scotia - 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;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal has ordered a new trial in a marijuana grow-op case because police conducted secret background checks on potential jurors to help the prosecution," the National Post story by reporter Shannon Kari published earlier today begins, under the heading: "Nova Scotia court orders new trial because of police jury vetting: The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal says jury vetting is improper because the Supreme Court of Canada has stated that a jury should not appear to favour one side over the other."
"The decision issued Thursday is the first time a court in Canada has ruled on what should happen as a result of improper jury vetting in a criminal trial," the story continues.
“The jury selection process must be fair and in order to maintain respect for the administration of justice, must appear to be fair,” said the Nova Scotia appeal court.
The court quashed the conviction of Kevin Hobbs, who was convicted by a jury on June 1,2009, of operating an illegal marijuana grow-op.
What was not disclosed to Mr. Hobbs, was that Halifax police and the local RCMP had run database checks on more than 300 potential jurors. The searches were wide-ranging and even disclosed if individuals had traffic tickets. In the end, police managed to pass on information about 223 people to the prosecution.
The Crown who prosecuted the case maintained the background checks were to ensure potential jurors were impartial. The information obtained through the police search of confidential databases was not disclosed to the defence, because it was “trial preparation material,” the court was told.
The explanation was rejected by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, which noted that the Supreme Court of Canada stressed nearly twenty years ago that a jury should not appear to favour one side over the other.
“The failure to disclose the information, in the circumstances of this trial, gave the Crown an unfair advantage that actually impacted on the selection of the jury,” wrote Justice Duncan Beveridge, with Justices Nancy Bateman and Linda Oland concurring.
The appeal court declined a request by defence lawyer Luke Craggs to throw out the charges completely, because of an alleged abuse of process.
The jury vetting in the Nova Scotia case, apparently came to light as a result of a National Post article published last May, a few days before the jury convicted Mr. Hobbs.
The National Post story detailed widespread and long-standing jury checks by the Crown and police in Ontario.
The prosecutor in the Hobbs case decided to disclose the jury vetting in his trial after learning the practice “was the subject of some controversy,” the appeal court noted Thursday.
Within days, the federal Public Prosecution Service of Canada issued a new directive that restricted database checks to ensuring that someone is eligible to serve as a juror. In Nova Scotia for example, an individual convicted and sentenced to more than two years in custody, cannot serve on a jury.
The federal prosecution guidebook now requires Crown attorneys to disclose any information obtained from background checks to the defence. Similar changes have been made to the policy manual for provincial Crowns in Nova Scotia.
There are about a dozen cases before the Ontario Court of Appeal where the Crown and police conducted secret jury checks. That court has not yet ruled in any of the cases.
The Ontario Privacy Commissioner issued a report last fall that revealed that one-in-three Crown offices in the province engaged in improper jury vetting in the previous three years."
The story begins at:
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/Nova+Scotia+court+orders+trial+because+police+jury+vetting/3282399/story.html
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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 accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2010/07/new-feature-cases-issues-and.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
