Editorial; Independent criminal case review: (2): David Milgaard: (Saskatchewan): Donald Marshall; (Nova Scotia): Ivan Henry. (British Columbia); The Times Colonist calls for "closer scrutiny" of miscarriages of justice through independent criminal case review..." Part of the problem is that the same agencies that investigate and prosecute offenders must later be convinced they made a mistake. But law-enforcement officials and Crown prosecutors are only human. No one likes to admit an error, particularly if the implication is that an innocent victim was sent to prison. In 1995, after a series of such errors made headlines in Britain, the government there established a Criminal Cases Review Commission. Operating at arm’s length, the commission investigates potential miscarriages of justice, and can, when warranted, file an appeal. Last year, of 14 cases sent to the courts for reconsideration, half resulted in the original conviction being overturned. Might something of that sort work here?"

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Yesterday's post, on the Susan Neill-Fraser case, also stresses the need to establish an independent criminal cases review system in Australia - as a solution to the lack of political will when it comes to allegations of wrongful conviction:  "The reluctance of the political establishment to question the justice system in cases where wrongful conviction is alleged is common.........In South Australia, Henry Keogh, convicted of the murder of his girlfriend, spent two decades in prison despite his legal team presenting the South Australian government with compelling evidence, eventually accepted by the state’s highest court in 2014, of serious flaws in the forensic evidence used to convict him. The government of Labor Premier Mike Rann refused to allow Keogh justice because it was too busy burnishing its attacks on criminal defence lawyers and sounding tough on law and order. The solution to the lack of political will when it comes to allegations of wrongful conviction is to establish an independent criminal cases review commission. These bodies — one exists in Scotland and others in England and Wales — are at arm’s length from politics and enable a dispassionate, fair analysis of the claim. Such a commission process does not exist in Australia and the result is messy and political in cases such as Neill-Fraser’s. The legal system in a democratic society should not be afraid to say it got it wrong, or at least be open to scrutiny when such as claim is made."

EDITORIAL: Miscarriages of justice need closer scrutiny," by The Times Colonist, published  on August 26, 2017.

GIST: "Parole boards in Canada set great store on offenders admitting guilt before granting them release. Within reason, the policy makes good sense. Prisoners who are in denial about their actions, or who cannot discern right from wrong, are a threat to re-offend. Facing facts, in particular uncomfortable facts, is an important step toward rehabilitation. However, there are grounds for concern if the policy is taken too far. Our courts do a good job of sorting out the innocent from the guilty, but they are not infallible. In recent decades, more than a dozen Canadians have been convicted of high-profile crimes they did not commit, and these are just the cases we know of. Most, like David Milgaard, Donald Marshall and a Vancouver man, Ivan Henry, maintained their innocence throughout. Milgaard spent 23 years behind bars, Marshall 11 and Henry 27. Yet none were granted parole. Rather, they were released because new evidence came to light, or serious questions were raised about police or prosecutorial conduct. Had they relied on parole boards for their freedom, who can say how long they might have waited?...........This is only one aspect of a larger issue. Our justice system is heavily stacked against prisoners who wish to appeal. Again, there are good reasons for that. We are entitled to place confidence in the outcome of criminal trials. The defendants have every opportunity to establish their innocence; indeed, the benefit of the doubt is in their favour. But when a miscarriage of justice does occur, proving it is an uphill battle. Long before Milgaard was finally exonerated, serious doubts had been raised as to his guilt. But getting a hearing for those doubts proved to be a formidable task. Part of the problem is that the same agencies that investigate and prosecute offenders must later be convinced they made a mistake. But law-enforcement officials and Crown prosecutors are only human. No one likes to admit an error, particularly if the implication is that an innocent victim was sent to prison. In 1995, after a series of such errors made headlines in Britain, the government there established a Criminal Cases Review Commission. Operating at arm’s length, the commission investigates potential miscarriages of justice, and can, when warranted, file an appeal. Last year, of 14 cases sent to the courts for reconsideration, half resulted in the original conviction being overturned. Might something of that sort work here? Following Milgaard’s exoneration, the province of Saskatchewan set up a royal commission to look into the case. The commission recommended that the federal government create an independent body to review allegations of wrongful conviction, along the lines that Britain followed. To date, however, no such agency has been created. Parliament, it appears, is unwilling to entertain doubts on this subject. Yet our courts operate as much on a foundation of public trust as upon due process. And nothing shakes confidence more thoroughly than the suspicion that errors are being brushed under the carpet.

Then again, if our trial process cannot stand external scrutiny, just how robust is it? Milgaard, Marshall and Henry, collectively, spent 61 years in prison for crimes they did not commit. Some would say that’s reason enough to take a second look at the way we investigate miscarriages of justice."

The entire editorial can be found at:

• OBITUARIES
• Classifieds
• Autos
• Homes
• Jobs
• CELEBRATIONS
• Place An Ad
• Newspaper Ads

OBITUARIES Classifieds Autos Homes Jobs CELEBRATIONS Place An Ad Newspaper Ads Times Colonist Subscribe Manage Subscriptions News Canada 150 Opinion Business Sports Entertainment Life Driving Flyers E-edition WEB SIGN-IN Blogs Letters Editorial: Miscarriages of justice need closer scrutiny Times Colonist August 26, 2017 12:45 AM [Share via Email] [Print Article] Parole boards in Canada set great store on offenders admitting guilt before granting them release. Within reason, the policy makes good sense. Prisoners who are in denial about their actions, or who cannot discern right from wrong, are a threat to re-offend. Facing facts, in particular uncomfortable facts, is an important step toward rehabilitation. However, there are grounds for concern if the policy is taken too far. Our courts do a good job of sorting out the innocent from the guilty, but they are not infallible. In recent decades, more than a dozen Canadians have been convicted of high-profile crimes they did not commit, and these are just the cases we know of. Most, like David Milgaard, Donald Marshall and a Vancouver man, Ivan Henry, maintained their innocence throughout. Milgaard spent 23 years behind bars, Marshall 11 and Henry 27. Yet none were granted parole. Rather, they were released because new evidence came to light, or serious questions were raised about police or prosecutorial conduct. Had they relied on parole boards for their freedom, who can say how long they might have waited? Of course, cell blocks are full of prisoners who proclaim their innocence. No one suggests taking them at their word. Yet it’s unclear whether demanding confessions as a condition of parole is necessary in every case. Researchers in Britain found that prisoners who refused to admit guilt and were released anyway were less likely to re-offend than those who owned up. It’s possible the latter were simply gaming a system that some have learned to exploit. This is only one aspect of a larger issue. Our justice system is heavily stacked against prisoners who wish to appeal. Again, there are good reasons for that. We are entitled to place confidence in the outcome of criminal trials. The defendants have every opportunity to establish their innocence; indeed, the benefit of the doubt is in their favour. But when a miscarriage of justice does occur, proving it is an uphill battle. Long before Milgaard was finally exonerated, serious doubts had been raised as to his guilt. But getting a hearing for those doubts proved to be a formidable task. Part of the problem is that the same agencies that investigate and prosecute offenders must later be convinced they made a mistake. But law-enforcement officials and Crown prosecutors are only human. No one likes to admit an error, particularly if the implication is that an innocent victim was sent to prison. In 1995, after a series of such errors made headlines in Britain, the government there established a Criminal Cases Review Commission. Operating at arm’s length, the commission investigates potential miscarriages of justice, and can, when warranted, file an appeal. Last year, of 14 cases sent to the courts for reconsideration, half resulted in the original conviction being overturned. Might something of that sort work here? Following Milgaard’s exoneration, the province of Saskatchewan set up a royal commission to look into the case. The commission recommended that the federal government create an independent body to review allegations of wrongful conviction, along the lines that Britain followed. To date, however, no such agency has been created. Parliament, it appears, is unwilling to entertain doubts on this subject. Yet our courts operate as much on a foundation of public trust as upon due process. And nothing shakes confidence more thoroughly than the suspicion that errors are being brushed under the carpet. Then again, if our trial process cannot stand external scrutiny, just how robust is it? Milgaard, Marshall and Henry, collectively, spent 61 years in prison for crimes they did not commit. Some would say that’s reason enough to take a second look at the way we investigate miscarriages of justice. © Copyright Times Colonist by Taboola Sponsored Links You May Like The Last Wallet You'll Ever Use.RidgeWallet.com Car Cleaning Tricks Local Dealers Don't Want You To KnowKiwiReport This Game Will Keep You Up All Night!Vikings: Free Online Game Jo Polniaczek Was Gorgeous In The 80s, But What She Looks Like Today Is IncredibleOyDad Single in North York? See Who’s on MatchMatch.com Brinkley: Trump is 'unfit for command'CNN Money Community Event Calendar Find out what's happening in your community and submit your own local events. Add an event See all community events Popular Editorials Most Read Most Recent Editorial: Miscarriages of justice need closer scrutiny Editorial: Amalgamation page left blank Editorial: B.C. needs new vision for ferries Editorial: Better garbage attitude needed ICBC office photo Editorial: Stop siphoning off ICBC money Times Colonist News And Tools Life News Obituaries Newspaper Ads Job Listings Car Listings Properties For Sale Place An Ad Infomart Other myLOCALFLYERS.ca About Us Subscribe Victoria Early Years Contact Us Advertise With Us Terms and Conditions Sponsorship Information Connect Facebook image Twitter image LinkedIn image RSS image Back to top Glacier Community Media © Copyright 2013-2017 TC Publication Limited Partnership. All rights reserved. Unauthorized distribution, transmission or republication strictly prohibited. OBITUARIES Classifieds Autos Homes Jobs CELEBRATIONS Place An Ad Newspaper Ads

http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-miscarriages-of-justice-need-closer-scrutiny-1.22176205

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. 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. Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;