Long-delayed Ashley Smith inquest to be webcast in fall
Read more: http://www.canada.com/Long+delayed+Ashley+Smith+inquest+webcast+fall/4981860/story.html#ixzz1Px2NTZbP
Christie Blatchford writes of the latest delay in the long-protracted coroner's inquest into the death of teenager Ashely Smith.Photograph by: Aaron Lynett, National PostAs a modern illustration of the old saw that you reap what you sow, I give you the Ashley Smith inquest.
Plagued with controversy, beset with delay and shrouded in secrecy, the proceeding briefly resumed Tuesday so lawyers could preview the webcasting system which will broadcast the inquest live when it starts up again in earnest next fall.
The preview of a process aimed at making the inquest more open was held behind closed doors, naturally, with both press and public banned.
When the doors opened, it was clear that none of the dozen lawyers for the parties and individuals with standing, nor any of the media lawyers who were present, had the slightest objection to the notion of the webcast, the brainchild of presiding coroner Dr. Bonnie Porter.
Indeed, some of these same lawyers — notably, Julian Falconer, who represents Ms. Ashley's family, Breese Davies for the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies and Richard Macklin for Ontario's Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth and press lawyers — have been leading the fight to make the inquest more transparent.
Media lawyers, for instance, earlier spent days on their feet arguing against a Correctional Service of Canada motion, which in its original form would have prevented the press from getting any exhibits until after the jury returned with a verdict (a version of that motion is still before Dr. Porter, with the CSC now seeking merely to have faces of their staff obscured in any video) and against a cumbersome process requiring reporters to fill out permission forms each and every time they want a copy of an exhibit.
And Mr. Falconer has three times written Dr. Porter's senior counsel, Eric Siebenmorgen, to criticize their joint habit of cloaking even routine matters of business in "confidential memos."
In fact, Mr. Falconer told Mr. Siebenmorgan in his latest complaint the secret memo "appears to be the mechanism the honourable coroner has selected for communicating a ruling and/or directions."
Mr. Falconer said that while the Smith family supports transparency, he strenuously objects to Dr. Porter issuing decisions or instructions this way when they should be part of the public record.
He said that while her desire to keep some matters secret "may be a good-faith effort to facilitate discussions," it nonetheless undermines the open-court principle which is supposed to infuse the Canadian justice system and is tantamount to either a publication ban or in-camera proceeding.
Mr. Falconer actually refused to abide by Dr. Porter's most recent "confidentiality request," except for one matter he said was properly private.
All in all, an exasperated Mr. Falconer told Dr. Porter Tuesday, her pattern of inquest-by-secret-memo "raises questions whether this process is truly one dedicated to transparency."
Because of this acrimonious background, Mr. Falconer and others were skeptical of the motives behind Dr. Porter's sudden and unsolicited embrace of the webcast — she took everyone by surprise when she announced last week that she had received permission from Ontario Chief Coroner Dr. Andrew McCallum to use the technology — and apparent conversion to openness.
Instead, they feared that the webcast might be a ruse used as a club to wave off future media requests for exhibits. As one media lawyer told Dr. Porter on Tuesday, "Our position is that the webcast cannot be a substitute for access to exhibits; a picture of a picture is not good enough."
(This was a reference to the fact the webcast will show only Dr. Porter, the witness in the stand and whatever video or photograph is displayed on the screen immediately behind the witness box.)
While neither Dr. Porter nor Mr. Siebenmorgen made any promises, it appeared the webcast idea is benign. The question will be fully answered only when the coroner releases three controversial rulings, already a month in the waiting, next week.
Two of the issues deal directly with the openness of the inquest — the CSC motion to have guards' faces obscured on prison video and whether reporters will have to continue using the cumbersome form (and if Dr. Porter will withdraw her threat to cite lawyers with contempt if they share with the media their copies of exhibits).
The coroner's key decision, however, is whether she will agree to a joint submission from all but one of the lawyers that she seize prison videos from the Joliette Institution in Quebec.
These videos show Ms. Smith being forcibly injected with anti-psychotic drugs and subjected to other harsh treatment just a few months before she was transferred to the Grand Valley Institution for Women in Kitchener.
Dr. Porter ruled earlier this spring that there was no "nexus," or link, between the treatment Ms. Smith received at Joliette and the state of mind which led to her strangling herself at Grand Valley on Oct. 19, 2007.
Ms. Davies, Mr. Falconer and Mr. Macklin appealed that ruling to Ontario's divisional court, which last month found Dr. Porter's decision was "difficult to understand" and sent it back to her for re-consideration.
These should be straightforward matters, as that hearing Tuesday should have been routine and matter-of-fact.
But Dr. Porter's manner of doing business and arbitrary decisions have strewn confusion and suspicion such that the ability of the coroner's system to handle complicated and important cases such as Ms. Smith's death is itself, now very much in doubt.
Postmedia News
cblatchford@postmedia.com
Read more: http://www.canada.com/Long+delayed+Ashley+Smith+inquest+webcast+fall/4981860/story.html#ixzz1Px2f1miA
Read more: http://www.canada.com/Long+delayed+Ashley+Smith+inquest+webcast+fall/4981860/story.html#ixzz1Px2NTZbP
Christie Blatchford writes of the latest delay in the long-protracted coroner's inquest into the death of teenager Ashely Smith.Photograph by: Aaron Lynett, National PostAs a modern illustration of the old saw that you reap what you sow, I give you the Ashley Smith inquest.
Plagued with controversy, beset with delay and shrouded in secrecy, the proceeding briefly resumed Tuesday so lawyers could preview the webcasting system which will broadcast the inquest live when it starts up again in earnest next fall.
The preview of a process aimed at making the inquest more open was held behind closed doors, naturally, with both press and public banned.
When the doors opened, it was clear that none of the dozen lawyers for the parties and individuals with standing, nor any of the media lawyers who were present, had the slightest objection to the notion of the webcast, the brainchild of presiding coroner Dr. Bonnie Porter.
Indeed, some of these same lawyers — notably, Julian Falconer, who represents Ms. Ashley's family, Breese Davies for the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies and Richard Macklin for Ontario's Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth and press lawyers — have been leading the fight to make the inquest more transparent.
Media lawyers, for instance, earlier spent days on their feet arguing against a Correctional Service of Canada motion, which in its original form would have prevented the press from getting any exhibits until after the jury returned with a verdict (a version of that motion is still before Dr. Porter, with the CSC now seeking merely to have faces of their staff obscured in any video) and against a cumbersome process requiring reporters to fill out permission forms each and every time they want a copy of an exhibit.
And Mr. Falconer has three times written Dr. Porter's senior counsel, Eric Siebenmorgen, to criticize their joint habit of cloaking even routine matters of business in "confidential memos."
In fact, Mr. Falconer told Mr. Siebenmorgan in his latest complaint the secret memo "appears to be the mechanism the honourable coroner has selected for communicating a ruling and/or directions."
Mr. Falconer said that while the Smith family supports transparency, he strenuously objects to Dr. Porter issuing decisions or instructions this way when they should be part of the public record.
He said that while her desire to keep some matters secret "may be a good-faith effort to facilitate discussions," it nonetheless undermines the open-court principle which is supposed to infuse the Canadian justice system and is tantamount to either a publication ban or in-camera proceeding.
Mr. Falconer actually refused to abide by Dr. Porter's most recent "confidentiality request," except for one matter he said was properly private.
All in all, an exasperated Mr. Falconer told Dr. Porter Tuesday, her pattern of inquest-by-secret-memo "raises questions whether this process is truly one dedicated to transparency."
Because of this acrimonious background, Mr. Falconer and others were skeptical of the motives behind Dr. Porter's sudden and unsolicited embrace of the webcast — she took everyone by surprise when she announced last week that she had received permission from Ontario Chief Coroner Dr. Andrew McCallum to use the technology — and apparent conversion to openness.
Instead, they feared that the webcast might be a ruse used as a club to wave off future media requests for exhibits. As one media lawyer told Dr. Porter on Tuesday, "Our position is that the webcast cannot be a substitute for access to exhibits; a picture of a picture is not good enough."
(This was a reference to the fact the webcast will show only Dr. Porter, the witness in the stand and whatever video or photograph is displayed on the screen immediately behind the witness box.)
While neither Dr. Porter nor Mr. Siebenmorgen made any promises, it appeared the webcast idea is benign. The question will be fully answered only when the coroner releases three controversial rulings, already a month in the waiting, next week.
Two of the issues deal directly with the openness of the inquest — the CSC motion to have guards' faces obscured on prison video and whether reporters will have to continue using the cumbersome form (and if Dr. Porter will withdraw her threat to cite lawyers with contempt if they share with the media their copies of exhibits).
The coroner's key decision, however, is whether she will agree to a joint submission from all but one of the lawyers that she seize prison videos from the Joliette Institution in Quebec.
These videos show Ms. Smith being forcibly injected with anti-psychotic drugs and subjected to other harsh treatment just a few months before she was transferred to the Grand Valley Institution for Women in Kitchener.
Dr. Porter ruled earlier this spring that there was no "nexus," or link, between the treatment Ms. Smith received at Joliette and the state of mind which led to her strangling herself at Grand Valley on Oct. 19, 2007.
Ms. Davies, Mr. Falconer and Mr. Macklin appealed that ruling to Ontario's divisional court, which last month found Dr. Porter's decision was "difficult to understand" and sent it back to her for re-consideration.
These should be straightforward matters, as that hearing Tuesday should have been routine and matter-of-fact.
But Dr. Porter's manner of doing business and arbitrary decisions have strewn confusion and suspicion such that the ability of the coroner's system to handle complicated and important cases such as Ms. Smith's death is itself, now very much in doubt.
Postmedia News
cblatchford@postmedia.com
Read more: http://www.canada.com/Long+delayed+Ashley+Smith+inquest+webcast+fall/4981860/story.html#ixzz1Px2f1miA
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.