- Gov't
seeks intervenor status in appeal of malicious prosecution ruling--Dec.
2004 | Blog
this sermonette
-
-
- Sarah
Gibb's feature Where angels fear to tread | Gibb story nominated
for national award
-
-
- Sermonette:
May, 2004
-
-
- If Frank Quennell is
any example of what former Justice Minister Chris Axworthy called
"evolving," Saskatchewan is ready to kiss justice good-bye!
-
- I publish
an astonishing document which appeared on the Opinion page Friday
aong with the response to it. The most recent articles and letters
appear first; the Quennell/Crofford
document
is at the bottom of this page..
-
- The Sarah
Gibb article to which two government ministers are responding
is here.
-
- Frank Quennell
has overstepped all ethical boundaries by using his office to
comment on a case which is before the courts. I will also say
that he did not read the Gibb piece carefully -- or else he doesn't
know how to read. He says there are mistakes in the article.
There are not. He also does not address the main point of the
article: Another Saskatchewan family was ruined because members
of the justice department and Social Services failed to properly
investigate rumours and spiteful allegations, choosing instead
to recklessly pursue child apprehensions and prosecutions of
innocent people.
-
- This is yet
another situation which should not have happened -- and because
it happened, many Saskatchewan citizens have been adversely affected.
Two of those who have been damaged are women I have come to know
and respect for their courage and hard work: Sarah Gibb and Rebecca
Vopni.
-
- I have much
more to say, and will say it soon. For now, read the letter signed
by our pathetic attorney general/justice minister, and cosigned
by the minister of the agency formerly known as Social Services
-- and weep.
Gibb's feature appeared March
27. On March 29, a ministerial order was granted to override
"privacy concerns" in order to respond to the article.
The paperwork justifying this order did not address the concerns
of the children who were apprehended. It does, however, refer
to "another high profile case." This would be the Klassen/Kvello
case.
Sarah Gibb had done a week-end
feature on the Klassen family two months before the Where Angels
fear to tread investigative piece which was also run as a week-end
feature.
In both these cases, the Crown
deviously obtained judicial orders which were so sweeping that
it was almost impossible for the media to report any details
of the case. The hypocrisy of the publication bans is clear as
we now see the government taking three weeks to have their lawyers
justify the breaking of their own orders.
Those orders are to protect
the government from legitimate public scrutiny. That is the only
purpose they serve. Non-publication orders continue after the
court has finally dealt with the matters in question. Injusticebusters
know that there are many other files which contain evidence of
government abuse but which cannot be examined in public because
they have been ordered sealed. Forever.
In the course of the seven-week
Klassen/Kvello civil suit, many documents which were previously
sealed were made public as they became part of the Plaintiff's
case. There remain other documents -- mostly those from Social
Services, now called Human Resources and Employment -- which
the public has not seen. These documents would show that Susan
Pasieka's actions in apprehending the children in the unnamed
family mimicked those of Carol Bunko-Ruys in the apprehension
of the foster children from Pam Shetterly, Diane Kvello, and
Dale and Anita Klassen.
The only appeals which should
be going on in these cases is an appeal to public reason. Of
course the public cannot make any reasonable judgment when the
government is allowed to pick and choose which aspects of the
case it gets to see.
There has been no evolution
-- at least insofar as prosecutors and social services people
acting more openly and honestly about child apprehensions. The
investigations continue to this day to be shoddy. Near St. Thomas,
Ontario this week, a new trial has been ordered in another
case which has all the earmarks of the type of hysteria we
have been accustomed to in Saskatchewan.
There has, perhaps, been some
evolution on the bench. Certainly Judge George Baynton's decision
was revolutionary in that it gave the plaintiffs' and the defendants'
evidence thorough scrutiny and did not assume those in authority
to be truthful just because they were in authority. Other judges
are looking more closely at Crown evidence. The Crown has lost
credibility and it will not regain it by continuing to cover
up and justify its mistakes.
The tiny mind of Frank Quennell
cannot get past picking at the bones of the Melfort family. Only
yesterday he told reporters that he scrupulously avoided discussion
of the one case -- an appeal of Judge Gerry Allbright's ordering
of a new trial for FV. He said he has no interest in the outcome.
Hmm. He is justice minister. He is attorney general. He did not
have to appeal.
The latest episode in this
story is Lorne Calvert standing by his Justice Minister. --Sheila
Steele, April 27, 2004
Calvert defends Quennell
James Wood, The StarPhoenix,
April 28, 2004
REGINA -- Premier Lorne Calvert
brushed off demands Tuesday from the Saskatchewan Party that
he fire Justice Minister Frank Quennell for writing a letter
to The StarPhoenix commenting on an article published in March
dealing with a sexual assault case.
"The minister of justice
(on Monday) asked me do I seek his resignation? My answer was
an emphatic no," he told reporters.
"He has written publicly
to express concerns about a newspaper article in which he believes
that there may be some concern the public may begin to question
the protection that is offered to children. Out of that concern,
he wrote.
"It's not a usual thing
that he or any attorney general would do, but in this circumstance,
out of his concern, he wrote. On that basis I have no reason,
no reason, to ask for the resignation of the attorney general."
But the Saskatchewan Party
again hammered at Quennell in question period on Tuesday, saying
he should step down because he inserted himself into a criminal
trial that is before the courts by writing the letter with Community
Resources Minister Joanne Crofford.
Opposition justice critic Don
Morgan said it is inappropriate for Quennell to say anything
about the court case.
"In this situation, the
minister of justice is commenting on the credibility of witnesses
and he's commenting on the level of co-operation police received
from witnesses and he's discussing the actions of the police
during the investigation. These are all part of ongoing criminal
investigation and criminal trial," he said.
Quennell said the letter he
and Crofford wrote did no such thing and commented only on the
March 27 article.
In the letter, published in
Friday's StarPhoenix, the two ministers make references to "two
separate, credible reports of child sexual abuse," the representation
the family had by private counsel and that three judges considered
the criminal matters and none raised concerns with respect to
the actions of the police, prosecutors or social workers.
There were three cases mentioned
in the article. One of them is under appeal by the Crown, which
has concerned the defence lawyer in the case that the outcome
could be affected by the letter.
© The StarPhoenix
(Saskatoon) 2004
Quennell under fire for
letter
Minister defends comments on article
Gerry Klein, The StarPhoenix,
April 27, 2004
The Saskatchewan Party has
called for Justice Minister Frank Quennell's head for writing
a letter to The StarPhoenix commenting on an article published
in March dealing with a sexual assault case.
In a letter jointly signed
by Quennell and Community Resources and Employment Minister Joanne
Crofford, the ministers say they had to take the "extraordinary
step of replying to the story" in order to maintain public
confidence in how the province deals with child protection and
sexual assault issues.
Crofford told the legislature
she signed a special order under the Child and Family Services
Act authorizing the release of information on child protection
proceedings that would normally be protected by law.
The attorney general is the
highest justice official in the province and is responsible for
seeing that justice is carried out -- both for the accused and
society, said Don Morgan, the Sask. Party justice critic.
"And that is why the justice
minister never comments publicly on criminal cases that are before
the courts," he told the legislative assembly.
In the opinion piece published
in Friday's StarPhoenix, the two ministers make references to
"two separate, credible reports of child sexual abuse,"
the representation the family had by private council and that
three judges considered the criminal matters and none raised
concerns with respect to the actions of the police, prosecutors
or social workers.
On Monday, Quennell told the
legislature the letter didn't address the case that is still
before the courts, but instead commented on the March 27 article.
It is imperative for the ministers
to respond because the article may have prevented other victims
from coming forward with their complaints or it may have resulted
in case workers being too embarrassed or intimidated to do their
jobs, he said.
"I have no commentary
on the trial or the appeal decision or the appeal that is underway,"
Quennell told reporters outside the legislature. "That would
be inappropriate.
"My comments are about
the article."
And there would never have
been a letter to the editor written "had due diligence been
done in writing (the article)," said Deb McEwen, a spokesperson
for the Justice Department.
But Robert Borden, the lawyer
who represents the family involved in the case, is hard-pressed
to identify where those inaccuracies might be.
"The story is accurate
and clearly that is the position of my clients," Borden
said in an interview. "There is nothing that I know of in
that story that is inaccurate, however -- as it relates to the
ministers' letter -- there is a plethora of misstatements."
Borden is concerned that by
bringing the matter into the public realm after justice officials
made the decision to take one of the cases to the Court of Appeal,
Quennell may have influenced the outcome.
When the original article appeared,
the Opposition avoided asking questions about it because some
matters were still before the courts and it worried about jeopardizing
the case, Morgan said in an interview after question period.
"If you are going to comment
at all, you wait until after the facts have been dealt with in
court."
When the minister wrote the
paper to complain, however, he not only put in doubt the outcome
of the trial, he may have given the accused a case before the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms that would allow him to get off
altogether, Morgan added.
Two of the three cases referred
to in the article are no longer before the court, McEwen said.
The ministers' letter also made no reference to anyone's names
and didn't question witness statements or the actions of officials
in the one remaining case.
And before the letter was sent
it was scrupulously reviewed to make sure it would not put the
other case in jeopardy, she said.
"I can tell you the letter
was drafted here in the Department of Justice and it was reviewed
by both the director of public prosecutions and the deputy minister
to assure it did not threaten any ongoing (court cases),"
McEwen said. "The letter was very carefully written to make
sure it doesn't do that."
McEwen also pointed out that
it's not uncommon for a justice minister using information that
is a matter of public record to comment on an issue in the media,
but that the decision to use Section 74 of the Child and Family
Services Act was unusual.
Tim Quigley, a law professor
at the University of Saskatchewan with expertise on criminal
law, agrees it isn't unusual for ministers to make public comments
on articles that appear in the press.
It is more unusual, however,
to have two ministers co-sign a letter, and while it may be unusual
for an attorney general to make public pronouncements on matters
that could be considered before the courts, it isn't illegal.
John Courtney, a political
scientist at the U of S, isn't sure it was a wise political move
for the justice minister to make, he said in a separate interview.
"I worry about the precedent
this could set," Courtney said.
It is particularly troubling
that the ministers took the unusual step of issuing the minister's
order under Section 74 to allow them to make statements that
would otherwise be protected, he said.
In her statement accompanying
the minister's order, Crofford says it is her opinion "the
benefit of the disclosure of the facts outweighs any invasion
of privacy that could result from the release because of the
need to maintain public confidence in appropriate Child Protection
proceedings and to avoid harm to any children involved in disclosure
of abuse, including children with disabilities."
No minister would take this
step unless it was felt something had to be done, and that came
about because of the "inaccuracies" in the article,
McEwen said.
The Opposition is expected
question the minister on details of the story again this week
while Borden is recording the letters and debate, perhaps with
the view of presenting it to the Appeal Court in order to have
the case thrown out.
© The StarPhoenix
(Saskatoon) 2004
FASD effects ignored
by investigators
The StarPhoenix, Tuesday,
April 27, 2004
The only flaw with the story
Another family destroyed (SP March 27) is the second title Where
angels fear to tread. It should have been Where fools rush in.
A key element of this tragic
situation is that the two girls making the allegations are the
unfortunate victims of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. The original
social worker on the case tried to refute this fact, the government
powers still try to ignore it, and the court systems are unprepared
and not educated to deal with it.
FASD does not affect the procedure,
policy and protocol or legalities, but it most definitely affects
what is fact and what is fantasy.
Sarah Gibb obviously did more
research for her story than the social workers did for their
investigation. She quotes experts in the field of FASD. They
give facts based on research that coincide with what friends
and family of Tom and Jessica have observed for years. Children
who are victims of FASD think, relate and speak differently from
other children. To base an investigation on their interview and
ignore presentations of truth is a grievous error.
Nothing in the story would
give the impression that suspected child abuse should not be
reported. The story's theme is the tragic outcome of a biased
investigation.
Tom, Paul and Jonathan were
always treated as guilty until proven innocent. Tom's charges
were stayed, Paul was found not guilty, and a judge found that
evidence had been withheld in Jonathan's case that could change
the outcome in a new trial.
Joanne Crofford and Frank Quennell
are obviously worried about public opinion; they should take
the complete, unbiased, original disclosure to the experts in
the Fetal Alcohol and Drug Unit in Seattle and request a thorough
examination and report.
Then, new educational programs
should be developed to be mandatory for all social workers. This
mistake has happened far too many times.
Paulette Lisoway
Archerwill
© The StarPhoenix
(Saskatoon) 2004
Ministers'
attack on story unfounded
- Kids' families have
rights too
Sarah Gibb, The StarPhoenix,
Monday, April 26, 2004
Following is the personal
viewpoint of the author, a local freelance writer.
Justice Minister Frank Quennell
and Community Resources and Employment Minister Joanne Crofford
(Story could damage abused children's rights, SP April 23) accuse
me of having written an unfair and inaccurate article about the
child protection system in Saskatchewan (Another family destroyed,
SP March 27).
The ministers' letter contains
significant errors, which I would like to address.
My story concerned a Saskatchewan
family who lost three adopted children after two of them accused
family members of sexual abuse. For the record, I can substantiate
every line of that article. Based on weeks of research, I'm also
certain there are no significant omissions.
The ministers claim the story
contained the following three errors:
"As an example, it says
police laid charges within hours of becoming involved."
Not so. My story said police
decided to lay charges within hours of becoming involved. On
the day the kids were removed, the RCMP investigating officer
told family members, during videotaped interviews, that charges
would be laid. This was before the alleged victims had been medically
examined, before the accused had been interviewed, and before
the police had even looked for corroborating evidence (not that
they ever did).
"(The story) suggests
that the psychologist's report was not properly disclosed to
the defence counsel."
This implies I accused the
Crown prosecutor of impropriety. Not so. I accept that the prosecutor
disclosed the report to the defence counsel as soon as he received
it, shortly after one of the accused was found guilty. The report
matters because it contained information that might have led
to an acquittal. My question was simply this: Was anyone from
Social Services made aware of the contents of the report in time
for the accused's trial? The psychologist testified that she
often discusses her reports informally with Social Services before
submitting them, but couldn't recall whether she'd done so in
this case. Therefore, my question remains.
"The story reports that
the father was not interviewed before being charged. In fact,
the RCMP gave the father an opportunity to make a statement,
but he refused to do so."
Have the ministers seen documents
confirming that the father was offered an interview? He says
he was not, and his wife knows nothing of such an offer. The
father was out of town when his children were removed. He was
told to go to the police station upon his return, and was charged
on arrival by the officer in charge of the case. He says she
didn't request an interview, and the court records make no mention
of any attempt to interview him.
These are the only three "errors"
the ministers were able to cite out of an 8,000-word article.
The ministers defend the actions
of the RCMP and Social Services, stating they acted on two "credible"
reports of sexual abuse. But a report sufficiently credible to
trigger an investigation may not be enough to lay charges. In
the case in question, the removal of the children, the charges
and the prosecution were based entirely on the claims of the
two children, one of whose statements a trial judge later called
confusing and contradictory, not "credible."
The ministers further state
that: "A judge of the family court found the children to
be in need of protection ..." This implies there was an
examination by the family court of the abuse allegations. There
was not. The mother was persuaded to give up three of her adopted
children in exchange for the return of her biological son, who
had been taken into foster care. The three children were found
to be in need of protection only because the mother did not know
how, and could not afford, to fight to keep them.
The ministers say my article
sends the message that children with cognitive disabilities are
not entitled to the full protection of the law. My story implies
nothing of the sort. Every child is entitled to the protection
of the law. The only message my story was intended to convey
is that their families have rights too.
© The StarPhoenix
(Saskatoon) 2004 Return to top
of page
Story
could damage abused children's rights
Joanne Crofford and Frank
Quennell
Special to The StarPhoenix
Friday, April 23, 2004
Following is the personal
viewpoint of the writers. Crofford is minister of Community Resources
and Employment. Quennell is minister of Justice and Attorney
General.
We have a number of significant
concerns about both the content and tone of the story Another
family destroyed/Where angels fear to tread (SP March 27).
It sends the message that the
most vulnerable people in our society -- in this case, children
with cognitive disabilities -- are not entitled to the full protection
of the law, that their word is somehow less valuable or believable
than the word of others in society.
The story also puts into question
the credibility of the child protection system.
As ministers of Justice and
Community Resources and Employment, we are taking the extraordinary
step of replying to the story, with some details of the case,
to maintain public confidence in how we take care of children
who need protection, so that victims of sexual and physical abuse
continue to come forward.
In the case you reported, the
Department of Community Resources and Employment, formerly Social
Services, and the RCMP acted on the basis of two separate, credible
reports of child sexual abuse.
The RCMP and the DCRE have
a legislated obligation to investigate reports of child abuse.
The RCMP investigates to determine if a criminal offence has
occurred, as defined by the Criminal Code. DCRE investigates
to determine if a child is in need of protection, as defined
by the Child and Family Services Act.
Balance is crucial to ensure
children are heard, that the criminal investigation proceeds
and due process is provided to the accused person. The actions
of the RCMP and DCRE are subject to review and scrutiny. Ultimately,
those actions must satisfy the legal requirements of both criminal
court and family court.
The family was represented
throughout both the criminal proceedings and family court hearings
by senior, private counsel and had the full benefit of due process.
The criminal matters were heard
by three judges, none of whom raised any criticism with respect
to the actions of police, prosecutors or social workers.
A judge of family court found
the children to be in need of protection and made an order placing
the children in the care of the minister. The family has had
the opportunity to have the court orders changed, and still does.
The story contained a number
of factual errors. As an example, it says police laid charges
within hours of becoming involved. In fact, charges were laid
20 days later.
It suggests that the psychologist's
report was not properly disclosed to the defence counsel. In
fact, as noted by Mr. Justice G. N. Allbright on the appeal case,
the prosecutor provided the psychologist's report to defence
counsel as soon as it was received and before sentencing. A criminal
trial does not conclude until the sentencing hearing has concluded.
Defence counsel had a number
of options on receiving the report, including reopening the guilty
finding or asking for a mistrial.
The story reports that the
father was not interviewed before being charged. In fact, the
RCMP gave the father an opportunity to make a statement, but
he refused to do so.
It is clear that The SP made
little effort to check the information it published to ensure
it was accurate and balanced.
Individuals with disabilities
and children are among the most vulnerable people in our society
and are entitled to the full protection of the law. This sensationalized,
tabloid-style news report will only discourage victims of abuse
from coming forward. And, as a result, they will not receive
the help and protection they need.
© The StarPhoenix
(Saskatoon) 2004
Return to top
of page
Please write
letters to the editor of the StarPhoenix and the Saskatchewan
Law Society regarding Quennell's unprofessional and unethical
conduct. (And send copies to injusticebusters, please. We have
to bring this bozo down!)
|
Truth can never be
told so as to be understood, and not be believ'd.