Very disappointing news today (22 April 2013) from the Supreme Court of Canada:
22 April 2013: “Sex assault accuser reacts to top court case dismissal” & related articles
I have included in the above an article from this morning`s Toronto Star which gives an excellent recap of the issues which brought this case to the Supreme Court of Canada. It`s tacked on at the bottom, but, you might want to start reading there before reading news of the decision by the highest court in the land to uphold the Nova Scotia Supreme Court`s decision to dismiss a number of child sex abuse convictions against Ernest Fenwick MacIntosh.
MacIntosh`s lawyer claims that the Supreme Court`s decision proves that client’s right to a speedy trial was violated. I`m hard pressed to agree that MacIntosh`s right to a speedy trial was violated. But then, I am hard pressed to agree that any child should ever be willfully placed at risk, in this case because of a legal technicality. In fact, I just have trouble accepting the fact that the rights of child molesters can trump those of his victims ( victims surely do have some rights?) I also have trouble accepting the fact that any court can see fit to unleash a convicted child molester on society – on a technicality.
What about the children?
What about justice?
Sad to say, the failure to extradite MacIntosh in a speedy fashion is reminiscent of the Father Eric Dejaeger.
And then there`s the passport fiasco. How in the name of all that`s good and holy did MacIntosh, a wanted man, manage to get his passport? And how did he manage to travel in and out of the country without so much as a murmur?
It boggles the mind. But then, look what happened with Father Jose Silva. In that case the Crown actually helped Silva get out of the country to elude justice. So, truth be told, who knows exactly what happened – and what strings may have been pulled – in the MacIntosh fiasco?
What about the children?
That`s my burning question. With all of thi8s legal dancing on the ehad of a pin, what about the children?
Please keep the MacIntosh victims in your prayers. This I am sure has come as quite a blow. As with Michael Jensen when the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the acquittal of Father Charles Picot, this is the end of the line in a victim`s search for truth and justice. There is nowhere else to go. Nowhere to appeal. When teh Supreme Court speaks, that`s it.
I am deeply disappointed. Not really surprised. Deeply disappointed.
Enough for now,
Sylvia
The difference with Dejeager is he absconded from justice for decades as result of the number of charges he must have understood might come out in the early nineties. He is incarcerated as result of his untrustworthyness in relations to the justice system and he is being held as a result. The fact that so many charges are laid makes this case complicated and time heavy but Dejeager is not being denied a timely trial given the scope and number of charges. Again he will sadly redeem his incarcerated status against any sentence with a plea of guilt. I just hope the judge takes into account that he had potential for escape and needed to keep him incarcerated and that should be considered in the sentencing summary if one does occur.
Where the similarity with Dejaeger lies is with his ability to get out of the country to elude justice, and then, once he had fled, the abject failure to have him extradited to face his accusers. I sometimes wonder if Dejeager would still be in Belgium had not a reporter discovered that he, Dejaeger, had lost his Belgium citizenship and the government was in a position to deport him? There are many questions regarding the manner in which both Canadian and Belgian government officials dealt with the Dejaeger situation from 1995 to January 2011. Was no one – Church officials included here for sure – at the very least, concerned about the children in Belgium? It seems not.
All that aside, my concern here is that the highest court in the land has allowed a child molester to “walk” on a legal technicality. There’s something sorely amiss when the Charter rights of a molester trumps the rights of every child to safety and security. A molester is free to prowl the streets. Who will protect the children?
As for right to a speedy trial, I hope that doesn’t become something Dejaeger’s lawyer decides to pull out of the bag. It certainly would not be a popular decision, and would cause a public furor. I’m not sure that it would work for Dejaeger – but, by the time he goes to trial it will have been nearly three years since his return and incarceration in Iqaluit.