medpot
07-15-2010, 07:43 PM
National Post (http://www.nationalpost.com/Nova+Scotia+court+orders+trial+because+police+jury +vetting/3282399/story.html)
Letters to the Editor (http://www.nationalpost.com/contact/letters/index.html?name=Letters&subject=Letter+to+the+editor)
Nova Scotia court orders new trial because of police jury vetting
http://www.nationalpost.com/3170418.bin
Chris Schwarz, Cawest News Service
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.
Shannon Kari, National Post · Thursday, Jul. 15, 2010
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 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 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.
skari@nationalpost.com
Letters to the Editor (http://www.nationalpost.com/contact/letters/index.html?name=Letters&subject=Letter+to+the+editor)
Nova Scotia court orders new trial because of police jury vetting
http://www.nationalpost.com/3170418.bin
Chris Schwarz, Cawest News Service
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.
Shannon Kari, National Post · Thursday, Jul. 15, 2010
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 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 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.
skari@nationalpost.com