|
Michael
Cardamone |
What do Don
and Lorna Smith have in common with Judge Diane Petit Baig? Both
used to live in Fort Frances but were compelled to leave after
being viciously treated by parts o the legal community and the
general narrow-mindedness of this town which has way too many
churches.
Judge Baig has the last laugh | Attitudes
to web porn changed long ago but not soon enough for Don
Smith
Don and Lorna
Smith
Sermonette:
The
police not only failed to serve and protect Don and Lorna Smith
and their children but actively participated in setting them
up for false charges and community shunning | previous sermonette: The
naked truth
| Report from 2002: Was Don Smith simply caught in a
time/space warp which is now passing?| Scott
Gobeil | Newspaper coverage of the Salem-type trial
| The Smith's ordeal
for the last two years | Don
Smith in his own words |
Take 2 for
snuff filmmaker
By MARK BONOKOSKI, Toronto
Sun, Fab. 9, 2005
One day, Don Smith is making
a living producing fantasy "snuff" films for sale on
the Internet -- a sniper zeroes in on two women sunbathing topless,
for example, the crosshairs of his rifle focus on their bare
breasts moments before his bullets tear into their target --
and then, next thing Don Smith knows, he's busted.
But there was no sex in his
flicks, his defence counsel would later argue, just nudity.
Lots of violence, yes, but
no physical sex.
In the end, a jury in the Northern
Ontario town of Fort Frances decided that Don Smith, who then
lived in nearby Woodyatt, was nonetheless guilty of "undue
exploitation of sex and violence" contrary to a section
of the Criminal Code dealing with the corruption of morals, and
Superior Court Judge Helen Pierce then pronounced sentence.
And it wasn't exactly light.
Smith, 47 on the day of reckoning,
was fined $100,000, was placed on probation for three years,
and was banned from having any access to the Internet.
Yesterday, Smith's fight against
that 2002 conviction finally landed in the Ontario Court of Appeal
at Osgoode Hall, where much of the focus was on the definition
of what is not even defined in the Criminal Code itself.
And that's the definition of
"explicit sex."
For example. Does "static
nudity" or even "graphic nudity" amount to "explicit
sex" or "explicit sexual activity" when there
is no physical sexual contact whatsoever?
Smith's Toronto lawyers, Brian
Greenspan and Peter Copeland, argued that, without any physical
sex act, the evidence that convicted their client falls short
of the Criminal Code's intent, and that his conviction should
therefore be overturned and his fine wiped out.
As stated in a factum Greenspan
and Copeland presented to the appeal court tribunal of Justices
Marc Rosenberg, Janet Simmons and Susan Lang, the videos and
visual materials which got their client busted by a joint Fort
Frances OPP and Winnipeg police operation displayed images representing
"nude or partially clad women who were subjected to violence
by shootings with guns, or arrows, or inflicted by knives or
sword."
But, the lawyers argued in
the factum, none of the videos or visible material displayed
sexual acts such as "intercourse, fellatio, cunnilingus,
masturbation, spanking, caressing or other sexual touching, kissing
or hugging," and "the perpetrators of the violence
did not engage in sexual relations with their victims."
In fact, the lawyers argued
there were numerous Hollywood films more graphic and more sexually
exploitative than anything their client ever put on a CD-ROM
-- like Kill Bill, said Greenspan, and Natural Born Killers.
Other Hollywood films noted
in the factum for their "memorable" death scenes included
Architects of Fear, China White and Friday the 13th.
The Crown's Jennifer Woollcombe,
saw it differently, however, arguing that the lack of specific
sex acts in Smith's videos did not mean there was no "explicit
sexual activity" to support a conviction under the Criminal
Code section dealing with "undue exploitation of sex and
violence."
Take the sniper video, for
example. And its plot line.
While the two women sunbathing
were not totally nude, the two women whose murders were simulated
inside the house were naked, Woollcombe said. One was brushing
her hair, and the other was about to step into the shower when
they were gunned down.
In that scene, said Woollcombe,
their bodies were then "positioned" so that their legs
were "splayed, with the camera focussing on their sexual
organs."
And that, said Woollcombe,
is "sexualized nudity."
At the end of the day, however,
it was clear that all was far from being immediately clear --
what with Judge Rosenberg even pausing during the proceedings
to himself pose the question of the day.
"What is the definition
of explicit sex?" he asked.
Hours later, the court rose.
The judges deemed their decision
had best be reserved.
It may be months before it
is delivered.
- Man appeals
convictions for Web films
- Material
depicts naked women being shot, stabbed; lawyer argues it's not
obscene
By KIRK MAKIN, Globe
and Mail, JUSTICE REPORTER, Feb 9, 2005
A Northern Ontario man whose
Internet websites depicted naked women being stabbed and shot
to death cannot be convicted of obscenity because no specific
sex acts were portrayed, the Ontario Court of Appeal was told
yesterday.
"You don't have obscenity
unless you have explicit sex coupled with violence," defence
counsel Brian Greenspan told the court. "What we have here
is nudity and violence. We have scantily clad women in conjunction
with violence. There is unquestionably an abundance of violence
in these videos -- but sexual activity is virtually absent."
Mr. Greenspan said that his
client, Donald Smith, took care to research landmark obscenity
decisions before he began making films such as Skinny Dip,
Deadly Game and Scorpion. The films featured woman-hating
snipers executing victims, with blood gushing and flesh ripping
in slow motion.
Mr. Smith is appealing seven
2002 convictions for making, possessing and distributing obscene
material. He was fined $100,000, put on probation for three years
and prohibited from using his websites or the Internet.
Crown counsel Jennifer Woollcombe
argued yesterday that Mr. Greenspan and co-counsel Peter Copeland
are inventing a non-existent loophole in laws designed to capture
violent material that degrades women in a sexual context.
Whether or not sex acts such
as intercourse or oral sex are depicted, she said, there is an
obvious sexual context to the films' innuendo-laden dialogue,
suggestive poses, and scenes such as the insertion of weapons
into the private parts of screaming women.
"What's not sexual about
that?" Ms. Woollcombe asked. "There are clear depictions
of sexualized nudity in those videos. At the end of the day,
this is material where there are minimal plots and very little
beyond sexualized violence. . . ."
Expert testimony at Mr. Smith's
trial established that sexual sadists get gratification from
injuries, gore and the sight of men exerting power over victims,
Ms. Woollcoome noted. She said their perversions are psychologically
validated and worsened by sadistic material.
"These offences are not
victimless," she said. "Women, children and men who
saw this material were at risk of having their attitudes toward
others in Canadian society affected." Ms. Woollcombe also
pointed to a 1997 Supreme Court ruling as being decisive on the
obscenity issue. The ruling said that a film depicting a prison
warden forcing female inmates to spank one another was obscene.
The law states that material
depicting sex acts combined with violence is virtually always
obscene. Other sexually explicit material may be found obscene
if it depicts nudity or sexual activity in a "graphic and
unambigious way."
In assessing obscenity, judges
and jurors consider what the Canadian community would tolerate,
bearing in mind the possible harm that could result from the
material being available, and whether the harm is balanced by
artistic merit.
Mr. Greenspan argued that mainstream
movies such as Kill Bill and Natural Born Killers
have more violence than Mr. Smith's fare.
About 2,000 subscribers paid
about $50 to be members of Mr. Smith's sexual-sadism website.
Summary of events
(This summary
is from Don Smith's appeal which will be heard February 8, 2005
in the Ontario Court of Appeal)
1. On March 15, 2000, Wayne
Harrison ('Harrison") contacted Det.Cst. Paul Blais ("Blais")
of the Emo OPP Detachment. [officer notes volume 5, page 2]
2. On March 15,2000 at 1445
hrs. Blais stated in his notes, "no sexual acts are depicted".
[officer
notes volume 5, page 2]
3. On April 6,2000, Harrison
sought a legal opinion from the Toronto Crown Law Office in Ontario
regarding the criteria for obscene material. [volume 1 page 14]
4. On April 12,2000, Blais
entered the Smith's property without a warrant and conducted
a perimeter search of the Smith's residence. [officer notes volume 5, page 4]; [volume
1, page 15] [Blais' testimony: preliminary hearing transcript]
5. On April 19,2000, Crown
Attorney Robert Young ("Young") of the Fort Frances
Crown Law Office was asked by Harrison if he would prosecute
Mr. Smith for what he believed was obscene material on two websites.
Young made no commitment to prosecute Mr.Smith and agreed to
view a CD Rom made from the websites. Harrison sent the CD Rom
to Young's office in Fort Frances. [volume 1, page 15]
6. On April 25,2000, Young,
Blais, and other OPP officers viewed the CD and it's contents
at the Fort Frances OPP Detachment. There was a discussion amongst
the participants of the meeting regarding the legality of the
materials. Young still did not make a commitment to prosecute
Mr.Smith. [officer
notes volume 5, page 5] [Loshaw's testimony: preliminary hearing
transcript]
7. On September 5, 2000, Sgt.
Loshaw("Loshaw") of the Fort Frances OPP viewed the
website www.perfectshotsvideo.com. [Seized records from FACS page 00016]
[volume 2, page 414]
8. On September 6, 2000, Loshaw
met with Dennis to discuss the legality of the website and it's
content. [Loshaw's
notes volume 5, page 264]
9. On September 7, 2000, Loshaw
met with Dennis and Blais to discuss the website and the allegations
concerning Mr.Smith. At the conclusion of the meeting Dennis
left a telephone voice message at Family and Children Services
("FACS") in Fort Frances. The Director of FACS in Fort
Frances, Rita Chenier, states that Dennis said that the website
was not illegal. Michelle George of FACS received a call from
Loshaw on the same day. Loshaw provided Michelle George with
the website address and informed her that the website was not
illegal. FACS staff viewed the website, printed the pages, then
placed them in their files. As a result of these events, no criminal
activity on the part of Mr. Smith was identified as having taken
place. [Loshaw's
hand written notes volume 5, page 265] [Michelle George's Statement,
Volume 2 Page 310] [Volume of FACS records page 16]
10. On September 8, 2000, FACS
contacted Loshaw to tell him that the information did not meet
child welfare eligibility and that they were not taking any action
against Mr. Smith. [Loshaw's
notes volume 5, page 266]
11. On September 18,2000, Tina
Selman (a friend of the Webb's), told Williams that she had seen
Mr. Smith's website. She expressed concerns over it's legality.
Williams was informed by Loshaw of the following information:
the website had been viewed; there was nothing criminal on the
website; and FACS were unable to intervene based on the information
provided. Williams states in his notes that "Blais was also
advised". At 10:21 hrs. Williams called Tina Selman to notify
her of the information he received from Loshaw. Then Tina Selman
informed Williams of a rumor that Mr.Smith allowed Jason Webb
to help him edit his website. [William's notes volume 5, page 291]
12. By September 18, 2000,
Young, Blais, Loshaw, Dennis and Williams were aware that no
criminal activity was found to be taking place with respect to
the website and they had conveyed this to several wittnesses.
13. On September 19, 2000,
at 08:25 hrs. Williams met with Loshaw to discuss the history
of calls concerning Mr. Smith's website and the involvement of
FACS. Williams and Blais were told by Loshaw not to visit the
website while they were on duty. Williams and Cst.Chuck MacDonald
were asked to attend the Smiths' residence to investigate child
wellfare concerns. No investigation was being conducted regarding
obscenity. At 1011 hrs. Williams told Mr.Smith that the website
had been viewed, that there was nothing illegal on the website,
and that the reason for their attendance was due to a few concerns
expressed by neighbours who said that Mr.Smith let a neighbourhood
youth help him edit his website. Mr.Smith denied the allegation
and advised Williams of the recent incident between himself and
this particular youth. Mr.Smith advised Williams that the rumors
were motivated by malice on the part of the the youth and his
father and that the youth had threatened to "punch him out"
and to "shoot him", a few weeks prior. Mr.Smith asked
Williams to give the youth a warning about his making threats.
Williams told Mr.Smith several times during the interview that
the website had been viewed and nothing illegal or criminal was
found to be taking place on it. Mr. Smith then told Williams
that: (i) he thoroughly researched the obscenity law on the internet
prior to producing or posting any materials.
(ii) he was not doing anything
illegal because nudity and violence can be seen on television.
(iii) the host of the website
(Internet Solutions) approved the content for the web and told
him it was not illegal;
(iv) if it was illegal that
he wanted to know because he did not want to be involved in any
illegal activity.
(v) all of the actors were
consenting adults.
(vi) no sexual acts were depicted
in any of his materials. [officer notes volume 5, page 292 - 295]
14. On September 19, 2000,
1155 hrs. Williams updated Loshaw regarding the meeting with
Mr.Smith. At 1400 hrs. Williams called FACS and spoke with Michelle
George to provide her with the information received during the
interview with Mr. Smith. [officer notes volume 5, page 296]
15. On September 19, 2000,
1645 hrs., Michelle George advised Williams that they were "unable
to do anything with the information provided". [officer notes volume
5, page 296 - 297]
16. On September 21, 2000,
Williams spoke with Jason about making threats against Mr. Smith.
Jason admitted to having threatened Mr.Smith and then he made
false and malicious statements to Williams about Mr.Smith. [officer notes volume
5, page 298 - 303]
17. On September 29, 2000,
0830 hrs. Williams contacted Michelle George of FACS to inform
her of the information given by Jason regarding Mr.Smith. According
to FACS case records Williams told Michelle George that he "consulted
the pornography special crimes unit and there is not enough evidence
for a criminal charge".
Williams spoke to Michelle George despite his knowledge that
there was no evidence of Mr. Smith being involved in any criminal
activity. [FACS
case records page 9] [officer notes volume 5, page 303 - 304]
18. On September 29, 2000,
1330 hrs., Williams contacted Dr. Peter Collins of the Behavior
Sciences unit of the OPP and requested a threat assessment on
Mr. Smith. Williams took this action based on unverified allegations
and rumors, and in spite of the fact that Loshaw and Dennis had
already informed him that Mr.Smith's website had nothing criminal
on it and no criminal activity was found to have taken place.
[officer
notes volume 5, page 305 - 306]
19. On September 30, 2000,
Sr. Cst. Gobeil("Gobeil") became involved in the investigation.
Gobeil and Williams' actions were calculated to bring criminal
charges against Mr. Smith, to cause the destruction of Mr. Smith's
business interests, to inflict financial losses, to publicly
humiliate, and to inflict mental suffering on Mr. Smith.
20. On September 30, 2000,
1335 hrs. Gobeil and Williams met with pastor Shane Belding("Belding")
and Mrs. Smith. No statements were recorded or signed by Belding
or Mrs. Smith during this meeting.
21. On September 30, 2000,
Williams's improperly stated in his notes that Mrs. Smith made
the following allegations which Mrs. Smith denies having ever
made:
(i) Mr.Smith hired prostitutes
(ii) She was concerned that Mr.Smith's fetish was escalating
(iii) she was concerned for
his behavior
(iv) she was concerned for
her saftey
(v) there may be sexual abuse
[officer
notes page 309-313]
22. On September 30,2000, Gobeil
improperly stated in his notes that Mrs. Smith made the following
allegations which Mrs. Smith denies having ever made: (i) Kids
seen what is on website
(ii) kids seen naked women
(iii) Mr.Smith hired prostitutes
(iv) Mr.Smith made his wife
and kids go downstairs while he filmed prostitutes.
(v) Mr.Smith may have sexually
abused his daughter, Shelby.
(vi) Mr.Smith did not believe
he was doing anything wrong. [officer notes page50-55]
23. Furthermore, Gobeil and
Williams improperly stated in their police reports that Mrs.Smith
provided them with the following statements(which are entirely
denied by Mrs.Smith):
(i) she was fearful for her
safety,
(ii) she was fearful for the
well being of her children.
(iii) she said that her daughter,
Shelby, may have been sexually abused by Mr.Smith.
(iv) she said Mr.Smith hired
prostitutes from Winnipeg for filming.
(v) she said her and the children
were forced by Mr.Smith to stay downstairs while he filmed prostitutes.
(vi) she said that the Plaintiffs
children were exposed to the website materials.
24. Mrs.Smith denies making
any such statements. The statement Mrs. Smith signed a few days
later contains no such allegations.
25. Gobeil and Williams reported
these allegations to FACS and to their superiors in order to
foster a sense of urgency over the safety of the Smith's children
and to facilitate the acquisition of Arrest Warrants and Warrants
to Search the Smith's residence.
26. On September 30,2000, Williams
contacted Dr.Peter Collins to inform him of what he said were
"new allegations". Williams told Collins that Mrs.Smith
had made the allegations when in fact she had not made them.
As a result of the allegations conveyed by Williams to Collins,
Collins changed his opinion and said that the materials were
obscene, however, Collins never provided that statement in writing
until July 13,2001. [officer notes page 309-313]
27. On September 30,2000, Gobeil
contacted Rob Nichol and informed him of the same allegations
as Williams had reported to Collins and which Gobeil also improperly
attributed to having been made by Mrs. Smith. Rob Nichols changed
his opinion and stated that Mr. Smith is "likely producing
and distributing obscene materials". [volume 1 page 66]
28. On October 2, 2000 Mrs.Smith
gave a statement to Williams because of pressure from Belding.
Mrs.Smith's statement contains no such allegations as reported
by Gobeil and Williams. Mrs. Smith states that Belding wanted
Mr.Smith's websites shut down and that he made the false allegations
in the hope that Gobeil and Williams would begin criminal proceedings
against Mr. Smith.
29. On October 3, 2000 the
Smith's children Shelby and Reed were interviewed by FACS. As
a result of the interview with Shelby and Reed, nothing of a
criminal nature was disclosed.
30. Gobeil and Williams, repeatedly
contacted FACS and provided them with false and unverified allegations
concerning Mr.Smith in an effort to cast suspicion on Mr.Smith
and to facilitate the removal of his children from their home.
Gobeil and Williams persisted despite the fact that FACS had
reported several times based on the information provided to them,
that they were unable to intervene in the Smith's family.
31 Despite having no evidence
of any crimes being committed and despite their being told by
their superiors that the website had been viewed and it was not
illegal, on October 12, 2000, Gobeil and Williams acted improperly
and without probable cause by acquiring Arrest Warrants and Warrants
to Search from a Justice of the Peace in Fort Frances on the
basis of the following:
(i) false rumors and unverified
allegations made by Jason Webb.
(ii) hearsay, gossip, rumors,
and allegations reported by Tina Selman (iii) false and defamatory
allegations made by Belding.
(iv) rumors and allegations
reported to Loshaw by Laura Mutz.
(v) no written expert legal
opinion stating that the materials were obscene.
(vi) a report from the Winnipeg
Police called Appendix "D" in which the writer fails
to name himself.
(vii) Det.Cst.Campisi's opinion
based on her personal experience of only two years in a Child
Pornography Unit.
(vii) Williams' grounds for
belief based on: he viewed the webiste; Mr.Smith told him that
he makes movies at his home and on his computer; he saw the computer
equipment at Mr.Smith's home; Jason told him he saw obscene material
being produced and circulated the web site; Mrs.Smith told him
Mr.Smith made movies and took photographs and did special effects
on his computer.
(viii) Williams spoke to Dr.
Peter Collins who viewed the site, offered no opinion at that
time, and referred Williams to Rob Nickel of the OPP Child Pornography
Unit.
(ix) Rob Nickel's opinion that
the material is disturbing, graphic, and violent.
(x) Gobeil's religious motivations,
personal bias, and prejudices against Mr.Smith.
(xi) prejudicial and bias investigative
procedures in which Gobeil and Williams failed to allow Mr.Smith
the opportunity to answer the false allegations.
(xii) police reports in which
Gobeil and Williams both claimed that Mrs.Smith made statements
that she denies having made and are not verified by her signed
statement of October 2, 2000.
(xiii) the Justice of the Peace
took only 45 minutes to read over some 60 pages of material making
up the information to obtain the warrants and in the course of
deciding to issue the Warrants, the Justice of the Peace did
not view the materials or the website.
32. On October 13, 2000, the
search warrants were executed simultaneously at Mr.Smith's residence
as well as at William Smith's residence in Winnipeg. In the course
of executing the search warrants the Police Defendants carried
out the following acts which were meant to inflict mental suffering
on the Smith's, shut down their business activities, and to cause
damage to their economic interests:
(i) approximately nine police
officers appeared at William Smith's home, and eight police officers
appeared at Mr.Smith's residence. The large number of police
officers overwhelmed, shocked, and traumatized Mr. Smith, Shelby,
Reed, and Billy when only two or three officers could have effectively
carried out the task at each residence.
(ii) they laid false charges
against Mr.Smith in front of his children, and required Mrs.Smith
to drive home from her place of work in Emo Ontario in order
to take care of Shelby and Reed while Mr. Smith was arrested
and transported to Fort Frances by Williams and Blais.
(iii) Mr.Smith was confined
to a chair in his home for approximately 45 minutes during which
time Mr.Smith was not allowed to use his phone to contact a lawyer
without delay as is required under section 10(b) of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and they wrongfully detained
Mr.Smith for seven hours in a jail cell from 11:00 am until 6:00
pm.
(iv) they fingerprinted and
photographed Mr.Smith and later on December 18, 2000 Billy was
also fingerprinted and photographed in Fort Frances.
(v) they removed large amounts
of equipment, computers, camera's, movie props, firearms, and
toy guns, from their homes.
(vi) they took Mr.Smith and
Mrs.Smith's children's computer which had been used for their
home school for the previous 21 months.
(vii) they removed private
personal videos and photos from Mr.Smith and Mrs.Smith's home.
(viii) they wrongfully detained
Billy for approximately four hours.
33. On October 13, 2000 Gobeil
was involved in a news conference with Det. Sgt. Harrison and
Det.Sgt. Johnson of the Winnipeg Police. The use of the media
by Gobeil, Harrison, and Johnson, was a deliberate attempt to
gain public support for their actions through morality and to
publicly humiliate, defame, and vilify Mr. Smith and his brother
William Smith. Gobeil knew, or should have known, that this would
result in serious damage to the Smith's reputations in their
communities. Gobeil took part in this news event despite the
fact that he knew, or should have known that the F. B.I. in the
United States had said that the webiste did not violate any U.S.
laws. As a result of these actions the Smith's were denied their
right to presumption of innocence and they were subjected
to severe humiliation and were made to appear guilty in the public
eye.
34. On October 13, 2000 Williams
told Mr. Smith that, "private materials will remain such",
however, Mr. Smith's and Mrs Smith's personal videos and photos
have been viewed and copied numerous times by Gobeil and Williams.
Gobeil and Williams included the Smith's private materials in
disclosure materials and held them in evidence for more than
two years. Gobeil and Williams sent these private photos and
videos to Dr. Malumuth in the U.S.A. for his evaluation. This
was done despite warnings being given that the use of the Smith's
personal materials would be unconstitutional.
35. On November 16, 2000, Cst.
Williams was told by Det. Sgt. Scott Mills of the OPP Proceeds
of Crime Unit that Mr.Smith's business "does not fall within the definition
of a criminal enterprise". (SEE
Lorna's copy of Officer Notes Volume 5 page 351). Other copies
of this disclosure volume containing officer notes have this
information deliberately blacked out.
36. On January 24, 2001, Mr.
Smith told Gobeil and Williams that he was going to bring a civil
action against Gobeil's friend Belding(a church pastor) for breach
of confidentiality with respect to information he disclosed to
police in his statement on September 30, 2000.
37. On February 03, 2001, Gobeil
met with Belding to help him amend his previous statement. Gobeil
asked Belding questions that had nothing to do with his criminal
investigation but were intended to obstruct the Smith's proposed
civil action.
39. On February 15,2001 Gobeil
and Williams charged Mrs. Smith under the same section of the
CCC. and brought additional charges against Mr. Smith and his
brother William Smith without lawful justification, proper legal
foundation, or proper legal precedent.
39. On February 21, 2001, a
fourth computer containing solicitor-client privileged communications
was seized. Gobeil and Williams failed to afford Mr. Smith's
lawyer reasonable notice of the privileged communication that
was contained on the computer. As a result Gobeil and Williams
copied, viewed, and reviewed solicitor-client privileged materials
which is a criminal code violation under section 488.1(8) CCC.
40. On September 18,2001 a
pre trial conference was held in Fort Frances. Mr.Smith told
Judge Clark that he did not believe that he had not violated
the law. There was no resolution and preliminary hearing dates
were set for March of 2002
41. Shortly after the September
18,2001 pre trial conference Hellen Pierce was appointed to the
Superior Court. Ms. Pierce was a family law lawyer with no experience
in criminal law. She became the only female judge of nine judges
sitting on the Ontario Superior Court N.W.District.
42. During the trial Judge
H. Piece displayed bias and partiality in favour of the Crown
by: (i) she denied the defence motion for unreasonable delay
despite a 25 month delay in bringing the case to trial.
(ii) she allowed the Crown
to enter prejudicial evidence which was irrelevant to the charges.
(iii) she denied Mr.Smith's
right to make full answer and defence.
(iv) she denied two defence
requests for a mistrial.
(v) she improperly instructed
the jury regarding defence experts' testimony.
(vi) she failed to instruct
the jury that the benefit of doubt raised in the artistic merit
defence (through expert testimony) was to go to the artist.
(vii) she ignored evidence
adduced during the cross-examination of Crown witnesses.
(viii) she imposed a draconian
sentence that punishes Mr.Smith's wife, children and entire family.
|
Truth can never be
told so as to be understood, and not be believ'd. William Blake, The Proverbs of Hell
