|
Kings Journalism Review Vol.
7 | October 2001 The
case for reparations by Rocky Jones
Supreme Court Rules cops
can be publicly criticized for improper actions
By RACHEL BOOMER The Daily
News, October 25, 2002
Activist lawyers Anne Derrick
and Burnley (Rocky) Jones were duty-bound to speak out about
an illegal search of three poor black girls, Nova Scotia's top
court has ruled, overturning last year's $345,000 decision against
the outspoken pair.
In a startling reversal of
fortune, Nova Scotia's Court of Appeal struck down one of the
province's highest defamation awards yesterday.
In a 2-1 decision, it ruled
Jones and Derrick, who claimed at a 1995 news conference that
Const. Carol Campbell-Waugh 'strip-searched' three 12-year-olds
over a stolen $10, had the right to speak out publicly about
the issue.
'If constitutional rights are
to have any meaning, they must surely include the freedom of
persons whose Charter guarantees have been deliberately violated
by officials of state agencies, to cry out loud and long against
their transgressors in the public forum, and in the case of children
and others less capable of articulation of the issues, to have
their advocates cry out on their behalf,' Justice Elizabeth Roscoe
and Chief Justice Constance Glube wrote.
'(Jones and Derrick)
' had a duty to speak about the events at the school, the complaints
filed against the respondent and the Charter breaches they reasonably
understood had taken place.'
Justice Jamie Saunders disagreed,
arguing the statements were 'a very grave defamation.'
Campbell, who now goes by her
married name of Campbell-Waugh, is still a police officer and
works with the patrol section.
She sued the well-known lawyers
after the news conference, claiming they painted her as a racist
and tarnished her reputation. She said she didn't strip-search
the girls, but only asked them to pull their pants and underwear
away from their bodies to reveal the $10 one of them had hidden
in her underwear.
A Nova Scotia Supreme Court
jury agreed, ordering Derrick and Jones to pay $240,000 to compensate
for Campbell-Waugh's damaged reputation and hurt feelings, and
more than $105,000 for legal costs. So far, she has received
$100,000 of the money from Jones and Derrick's liability insurance.
Yesterday's decision would see Campbell-Waugh paying more than
$105,000 in legal costs to Jones and Derrick.
Campbell-Waugh wouldn't comment
yesterday. Her lawyer, George MacDonald, said they will consider
asking for the right to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
He added the decision doesn't
change the jury's finding that Derrick and Jones made false statements
about her.
'All that the Court of Appeal
has said is that Anne Derrick and Rocky Jones can hide behind
the cloak of privilege. They can make these untrue statements
in these circumstances, and Carol can't recover damages,' MacDonald
said.
Derrick said she's 'really
ecstatic' about the decision. She and Jones had always argued
they were blowing the whistle on a systemic problem, not calling
Campbell-Waugh a racist.
'(The ruling's) a principled
reasoning of a case that was shot through with principle in the
first place,' she said. 'It certainly cast a long shadow' '
More . . .
By RACHEL BOOMER The Daily
News, Halifax Friday, October 25, 2002
Until yesterday, Anne Derrick
was worried she could be sued a second time if she spoke publicly
about the defamation ruling against her and fellow lawyer Burnley
(Rocky) Jones.
Although it didn't make her
question her outspoken approach to the case that got her sued,
Derrick said losing the defamation case did make her worry she'd
be less able to take on other public-interest cases like it.
'It's like having a cold air
going down your back. It certainly cast a long shadow across
me. How could that be otherwise?" Derrick said yesterday.
After the original May 2001
ruling, some worried activists would refuse to speak out against
misconduct or injustice for fear they would suffer the same fate
as Derrick and Jones.
Advocate for the powerless
'For lawyers like Rocky Jones
and Anne Derrick, who advocate on behalf of people who don't
have power, I think it had to send a chill,' Stephen Kimber,
head of the University of King?s College journalism school in
Halifax, said yesterday.
He compared Jones and Derrick's
comments at the 1995 news conference with lawyer Eddie Greenspan's
defence of Gerald Regan in the former premier's 1998 sex-crimes
case, noting Greenspan often denounced Regan?s accusers to the
news media.
'That was considered good advocacy,'
Kimber said.
'(Yet) when you start saying
the police don't treat everybody equally, then we?ve got a whole
different set of rules.'
Civil libertarian Walter Thompson,
a Halifax lawyer, said yesterday the ruling seems to give lawyers
the right to argue their cases outside the courtroom, as well
as inside.
'It would advance the notion
of fair comment into the public forum,' Thompson said.
'I think that increases our
free speech. I'm sure the police officer feels yeah, at my expense.?'
Strip-search suit settled Parties mum on details
in Halifax case
By SHERRI BORDEN -- Halifax
Daily News, January 15, 2002
A second lawsuit stemming from
a white police officer's controversial search of three black
Halifax students in 1995 has been settled out of court, but none
of the parties is saying why.
In September 1995, the girls
- then students at St. Patrick's-Alexandra School - and their
mothers filed a lawsuit against Const. Carol Campbell-Waugh,
the then-City of Halifax, its school board and St. Pat's-Alexandra
vice-principal Peter Wicha.
"The matter has been resolved
so that there will not be a trial," Stephen Kingston, lawyer
for the school board and Mr. Wicha, said Monday. "Without
trying to be impolite, I'm just unable to comment further."
Terms of the settlement may
never be known. Mr. Kingston would not even say if the "resolution"
reached is confidential.
A 10-day jury trial of the
case was to begin Feb. 5 in Nova Scotia Supreme Court in Halifax.
"I can confirm that the
matter is not going ahead in February, and that's all that I
can confirm," said Murray J. Ritch, the lawyer for Halifax
Regional Municipality, Halifax Regional Police and Const. Campbell-Waugh.
As of Monday afternoon, no
draft order of a settlement had been filed with the court for
a judge's approval.
A school board spokesman said
Monday he would not have been aware of any settlement being reached
because the matter was in the hands of the insurer, through the
school insurance program.
"They would have made
any decision to settle, and it wouldn't have involved the board,"
Doug Hadley said.
Diane McRae, a business manager
with the school insurance program, said it is program policy
that claims are confidential. "If it wasn't a court judgment,
then it wouldn't be public record," she said.
The girls, now in their late
teens, had claimed an undisclosed amount in damages, alleging
breaches of their charter rights, false imprisonment, assault
and battery. But the defendants claimed the girls - who were
suspects in a $10 theft - brought the search on themselves and
suffered no injury, loss or damages. They also said the girls
were properly and reasonably detained by school authorities.
The girls' lawyer, Simon Gaum,
could not be reached Monday.
And the mother of one of the
girls said she needed to speak to Mr. Gaum before commenting.
Last May, a Supreme Court jury
awarded Const. Campbell-Waugh $240,000 in damages in a defamation
suit she filed against prominent Halifax lawyers Burnley (Rocky)
Jones and Anne Derrick, who represented the girls. A judge also
awarded the constable $75,000 toward her legal costs.
In June, Mr. Jones and Ms.
Derrick will appeal both the verdict and the costs awarded.
The constable claimed she was
defamed at a 1995 news conference when it was alleged she had
strip-searched three 12-year-old black girls during a theft investigation
at their school.
In media interviews, which
were replayed during the trial of her lawsuit, both lawyers told
reporters the search wouldn't have happened to white girls living
in an affluent neighbourhood.
The officer was reprimanded
by her superiors several years ago and later apologized for failing
to remind the girls of their right to counsel.
sborden@herald.ns.ca
Top court won't hear
defamation appeal
By Susan Bradley / Staff
Reporter, The Halifax Herald Limited, May 30, 2003
Halifax lawyers Anne Derrick
and Rocky Jones had a celebratory lunch Thursday to mark their
victory in an eight-year defamation lawsuit.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court
of Canada refused to hear a Halifax police officer's claim for
damages in a controversial defamation case involving three black
schoolgirls. The two lawyers were defendants in the lawsuit.
Const. Carol Campbell-Waugh
was initially awarded $240,000 in damages - the highest defamation
award in Nova Scotia history - but the judgment was overturned
2-1 by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. The dissenting opinion
gave her the right to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
"I am elated," Mr.
Jones said Thursday. "I had lunch today with Anne. She is
very pleased."
Ms. Derrick said she's happy
to finally see the issue put to bed.
"I'm very happy that the
Court of Appeal's decision has been left undisturbed," she
said. "And I'm personally glad to be at the end of this
road."
The case was sparked by a widely
publicized 1995 incident in which Const. Campbell-Waugh, who
is white, searched three 12-year-olds suspected of stealing $10
at a Halifax school.
Ms. Derrick and Mr. Jones later
filed a complaint about the officer's conduct, denouncing what
they characterized as a strip search and saying it wouldn't have
happened if the girls had been white and from wealthy families.
Const. Campbell-Waugh claimed
she hadn't strip-searched the girls but only asked them to pull
their underwear away from their bodies so she could look for
the missing $10. She found it on one of the suspects.
The officer also maintained
she'd been defamed by the suggestion she acted out of racial
motives.
A judge and jury sided with
Const. Campbell-Waugh, but the Appeal Court struck down both
the monetary award and the legal basis for it.
It said the search met the
legal definition of a strip search. It also said the comments
by the lawyers were covered by qualified privilege and they had
an ethical duty to call public attention to a case that involved
a possible violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
"There are certain things
in society that are wrong. You have to stand up and say 'This
is an injustice' and you have a right to say it," Mr. Jones
said.
"I hope that in the policing
community there is an awareness that there must be respect for
rich, poor, black and white. These children were treated in a
certain way because of race and class."
Asked if the experience has
changed the way she practises law, Ms. Derrick, a veteran advocate
for the underdog, said she's more aware of the potential pitfalls.
"It certainly brought
home to me how vulnerable advocates can be," she said.
Const. Campbell-Waugh isn't
discouraged by the outcome, her lawyer said Thursday.
"She has been vindicated,
despite the high court ruling which prevents her from collecting
damages," Hugh Wright said.
"It was never about money
for her. She brought this case to get her reputation back and
she has that.
"A jury of her peers from
our community found she was defamed and that jury finding was
untouched. Carol Campbell was, and is, fully vindicated."
Mr. Jones said he believes
the motives for the lawsuit went deeper than the allegations
by Const. Campbell-Waugh.
"I think it is no secret
that across the country at this time, the police are fighting
to get more power and included in more power is shutting down
dissent," he said.
"I think that somewhere
there was a decision made that this is the case where, if they
could get Rocky Jones and Anne Derrick and shut us down, because
of our personae, that it would have a chilling effect throughout
the advocacy community."
He estimated it cost about
$500,000 for Const. Campbell-Waugh to bring the lawsuit.
"What an incredible waste
of money, time and emotion. For all of us, for both Anne and
myself and the young girls, to have gone through this for eight
years because someone wanted to send a message," Mr. Jones
said.
"If the (police) union
paid for it, I am sure there are a lot of police officers who
are questioning it."
Mr. Wright denied Mr. Jones's
allegation and refused comment on whether the union funded his
client's legal action.
"I think that is really
a mischaracterization of the case," he said.
"The (Nova Scotia) Court
of Appeal has decided it is more important for lawyers to speak
out even if they are wrong and even if they damage someone's
reputation than it is for someone to recover damages. Obviously
my client doesn't agree with that but that's the law, in Nova
Scotia anyway," he said.
The Municipal Association of
Police Personnel, which represents Halifax Regional Police officers,
was vocal in defending Const. Campbell-Waugh.
"The jury found that Carol
was defamed and she deserves her reputation back," association
spokesman Const. Mike Balcom said. "She has been vindicated
and neither the Appeal Court nor the Supreme Court of Canada's
decision change that."
The families of the three girls
sued police after the strip-search incident and later settled
out of court for an undisclosed amount.
|
Truth can never be
told so as to be understood, and not be believ'd. William Blake, The Proverbs of Hell
