JURYGATE; UP-DATE; PRIVACY COMMISSION EXPANDS INDEPENDENT INQUIRY INTO JURY VETTING; ATTORNEY-GENERAL MAY AMEND JURORS ACT;

"THE PROVINCIAL MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL SAID YESTERDAY IT IS FULLY COOPERATING WITH THE EXPANDED INVESTIGATION -- AND FOR THE FIRST TIME, SUGGESTED IT IS OPEN TO AMENDING THE JURIES ACT.
BRIAN BEAMISH, ASSISTANT PRIVACY COMMISSIONER, SAID THE AGENCY HOPES TO MEET WITH THE SENIOR CROWN ATTORNEY IN TORONTO NEXT WEEK. "WAS IT JUST THIS ONE CASE? WE WANT TO FIND OUT," HE SAID."

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 is therefore monitoring developments on a regular basis;

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The National Post has waded into Ontario's jurygate scandal once again with a story by reporter Shannon Kari published earlier in the National Post under the heading: Probe Probe expands on news Toronto jurors screened," and the sub-heading: At Least One Case; Vetted jury list had been shown to defence."

"The Ontario Privacy Commissioner is expanding an investigation into background checks of potential jurors after it was revealed this week that the practice also occurred in at least one case in Toronto," the story begins;

"It is the first time in Toronto that there has been a report of police probing the backgrounds of potential jurors, following revelations that it was common practice in at least two and maybe three other jurisdictions in the province," it continues;

"The provincial Ministry of the Attorney-General said yesterday it is fully cooperating with the expanded investigation -- and for the first time, suggested it is open to amending the Juries Act.

Brian Beamish, assistant privacy commissioner, said the agency hopes to meet with the senior Crown attorney in Toronto next week. "Was it just this one case? We want to find out," he said.

The background checks in Toronto came out in court on June 30 during a sentencing hearing for Jeffrey Tuck, who was convicted in March of second-degree murder in the stabbing of a student at a local nightclub.

At least a dozen of the 190 people on the jury lists had "contact with police" written next to their names, which were also highlighted.

The vetted lists were disclosed to the defence before jury selection, although the issue was not raised by Mr. Tuck's lawyer until the sentencing hearing.

Superior Court Justice Maureen Forestell declined to delve into the background checks since the jury had already reached a verdict. She stated it was now an issue for the Ontario Court of Appeal.

What remains unclear is what was meant by the term "contact with police" that was written on the lists.

"The Crown in this case was brought in from the Ottawa office to conduct this trial," said Brendan Crawley, spokesman for the Ministry of the Attorney-General.

"As a visiting Crown, he asked the police to do a criminal record check in accordance with the Crown policy manual. He also disclosed the results to the defence prior to jury selection as required by the manual. He does not request juror background checks in Ottawa," said Mr. Crawley.

"Requesting broad background checks is not the Crown practice in Toronto," he said.
Anyone convicted of an indictable criminal offence is not permitted to serve as a juror in Ontario. Potential jurors are required to fill out a questionnaire, but there are no provisions that permit the police or Crown to access confidential databases to verify whether those called to perform their civic duty are telling the truth.

The government has maintained that the Crown is within its rights to determine a potential juror's eligibility by conducting criminal record checks.

"The Attorney-General has indicated we will immediately look at all options, including amending the Juries Act, to ensure that the burden of upholding the Juries Act is not falling solely on Crowns," said Mr. Crawley. "This will ensure clear and transparent procedures for any jury eligibility check," he stated.

The privacy commission began its probe last month after it was disclosed that police used confidential databases in Barrie, Windsor and in at least one case in Thunder Bay, to check into the background of potential jurors. In Barrie and Windsor, the searches were conducted on behalf of the Crown and were much broader than criminal record checks. The information was not disclosed to the defence.

The privacy commission "has received full co-operation so far," from the Attorney-General in its investigation, said Mr. Beamish.

The agency has already met with the Crown and police in Barrie, Windsor and Thunder Bay and is hoping that by the end of this month, it will receive the results of a survey it sent to every Crown office in the province."

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

JURYGATE; SCANDAL SPREADS IN ONTARIO: BARRIE, WINDSOR, THUNDER BAY AND NOW TORONTO; JEFFREY TUCK CASE; NATIONAL POST REPORTS;

"THIS IS THE ONLY RECENT CASE IN TORONTO WHERE IT HAS BEEN DISCLOSED THAT THERE WERE BACKGROUND CHECKS OF POTENTIAL JURORS USING POLICE DATABASES. IT HAS BEEN REVEALED THAT THEY HAVE TAKEN PLACE FOR SEVERAL YEARS IN WINDSOR AND BARRIE AND IN AT LEAST ONE CASE IN THUNDER BAY.

UNLIKE THE LONG-STANDING PRACTICE IN WINDSOR AND BARRIE, WHERE POLICE CONDUCTED SECRET CHECKS ON BEHALF OF THE CROWN, THE VETTED LISTS IN THE TUCK CASE WERE PROVIDED TO THE DEFENCE IN ADVANCE OF JURY SELECTION."

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 is therefore monitoring developments on a regular basis;

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ontario's jurygate scandal has struck Toronto - the National Post reported Tuesday under the heading: "Police ran jury checks in Toronto murder trial, court reveals," and the sub-heading, "Ontario jury checks could mar dozens of trials."

"TORONTO -- Jurors in a murder trial in Toronto earlier this year were subjected to background checks without their knowledge, it was revealed in Ontario Superior Court on Tuesday," begins the story by reporter Shannon Kari, one of the best reporters on Canada's justice system.

"At least a dozen of the 190 potential jurors in the second-degree murder trial of Jeffrey Tuck had their names highlighted which indicated they had "contact with police," although there was no further explanation of the phrase," the story continues;

"The people whose names were highlighted were not automatically excluded from the jury panel and it is not known exactly which databases were used to conduct the checks.

This is the only recent case in Toronto where it has been disclosed that there were background checks of potential jurors using police databases. It has been revealed that they have taken place for several years in Windsor and Barrie and in at least one case in Thunder Bay.

Unlike the long-standing practice in Windsor and Barrie, where police conducted secret checks on behalf of the Crown, the vetted lists in the Tuck case were provided to the defence in advance of jury selection.

"As soon as we had the information, we disclosed it," lead prosecutor James Cavanagh said in court Tuesday. The defence "had the same information we had," stated Mr. Cavanagh.

Tuck was convicted of second-degree murder in March for stabbing 20-year-old Salim Jabaji at a Toronto nightclub in 2001. The jury issue arose Tuesday at what was to be the sentencing hearing for Tuck, who was initially acquitted in 2005, but a new trial was ordered after a successful Crown appeal.

"We are not saying the jury got the wrong verdict, we are saying we got the wrong jury," said defence lawyer Colin Adams.

Superior Court Justice Maureen Forestell indicated that she had no jurisdiction to consider the background checks after the jury had reached its verdict.

"The defence has raised issues of irregularities in jury selection. That is a matter for the Court of Appeal," the judge explained. Judge Forestell indicated that she intends to sentence Tuck to life in prison with no chance of parole for at least 12 years. There is still a dispute however as to whether he will receive pre-sentence credit for time in jail on an unrelated offence.

Tuck intends to appeal the verdict and the jury checks will be one of the grounds, said Mr. Adams.

The defence lawyer admitted that at the time of jury selection earlier this year, he probably should have asked questions about the lists. "I was remiss in that," said Mr. Adams. "This was the practice in Ontario, long, long, ago. I thought it had stopped," he said outside court.

Mr. Cavanagh declined to comment outside court, other than to stress again that the Crown not have any additional information about jurors than was provided to the defence.

The issue of background checks into potential jurors in Barrie and Windsor was first reported by the National Post this spring, more than two months after Tuck was convicted.

Ontario Attorney-General Chris Bentley responded that the secret checks would stop. The Ministry of the Attorney-General still maintains it can check for convictions for indictable offences, as long as the information is passed on to the defence.

Anyone convicted of an indictable offence in Ontario is ineligible to serve as a juror. But there is no provision in the provincial Juries Act that permits police to conduct any check into a juror's background and pass this information on to the Crown. Jury lists are the responsibility of the court sheriff, who is independent of the Crown.

The provincial privacy commissioner has launched an investigation into the background checks.

Mr. Bentley has refused calls for an outside agency with subpoena power to probe the impact on the criminal justice system in Ontario. He initially stated that he believed the background checks were limited to Simcoe County, where the main courthouse is in Barrie.

He later stated that an internal review indicated the probes into potential jurors were only in Simcoe County, Windsor and Thunder Bay."

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;