PUBLISHER'S NOTE: It comes down to unfairness. Childminder Sandra Higgins has been put through four legal processes since she was charged with causing serious harm to a baby girl at her home on March 28th, 2012. (More than six years ago). Process 1: June, 2015: Mistrial after jury fails to reach a verdict. May, 2016: Retrial collapses after it emerged a jury had done independent research online - Googling the background of a witness in the case. January, 2018, another jury was sworn in for a third trial but an unspecified legal issue arose before the trial properly opened - causing the jury to be discharged. Most recently, the fourth attempt to try the case collapses after prosecutors 'inadvertently' failed to inform the defence of an exchange of communications between expert witnesses. (This was certainly no fault of her own); Six years of hell. Anxiety. Uncertainty. Fear. All of which should remind us that a criminal justice system is supposed to be an instrument of justice - not an instrument of mental torture (as in Higgin's oppressive proceedings); Higgin's prosecutors should not be permitted to bang away at her year after year until somehow they get a conviction. This is far too cruel. Enough is enough.
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.
------------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Childminder may challenge case going to trial for fifth time," by reporter Conor Lally, published by The Irish Times on June 21, 2018.
SUB-HEADING: "Sandra Higgins (37) from Cavan is accused of causing serious harm to a baby."
GIST: "There is nothing to stop the State proceeding with a fifth trial process in the case of Sandra Higgins, though the 37-year-old from Cavan could mount a legal challenge to stop it, informed legal sources have said. Ms Higgins (37) of The Beeches,
Drumgola Wood, Cavan, had pleaded not guilty to intentionally or
recklessly causing serious harm to a baby girl at the accused’s home on
March 28th, 2012. One source pointed to the long held legal view that an accused could only be tried three times. “It was never clear did that mean a
trial process started three times, or a trial concluded three times
without a verdict,” said one senior barrister. He added the Supreme Court in recent years effectively ruled against the view that three trials was the maximum. It did so in relation to Niall Byrne (36), of Crumlin Road Flats, Dublin. He was convicted last month of
being the “inside man” in a cash in transit van robbery in March, 2005,
when a Securicor worker and his family were held captive in their home
in north Dublin and just over €2 million was stolen. After the first trials ended with a
hung jury, Byrne attempted to halt any further prosecution but the
Supreme Court eventually ruled he could be tried again. Legal sources said while Sandra
Higgins had now been through four processes, only one was a full trial
and in the other attempted trials very little evidence had been heard. For that reason they said they
would not be surprised if the case went to trial again. But they added
Ms Higgins could also go to the courts and challenge any further plans
to prosecute her on the basis it was impacting on her mental state. “It definitely would not be a
formality but she could go and argue that this was very much undermining
her mentally,” said one source. In June, 2015, Ms Higgins first
went on trial but the jury was discharged after failing to reach a
verdict. A retrial followed in May, 2016, but it collapsed after it
emerged a jury had done independent research online - Googling the
background of a witness in the case. In January, 2018, another jury was
sworn in for a third trial but an unspecified legal issue arose before
the trial properly opened. It meant the jury was discharged. And now, during the fourth effort
to try the case, the trial has collapsed. This time emails between
expert witnesses in the case had not been disclosed to the defence. The fact the expert witnesses were
in contact would normally not be contentious but it was the inadvertent
non-disclosure of that contact to the defence side in the trial that
caused problems. Judge Pauline Codd said as a result she was satisfied there was a reasonable doubt the accused could not get a fair trial."
The entire story can be read at:
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/c
