Thank you very much.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak here. It's a privilege.
By way of introduction, I'm Eric Woodburn speaking on behalf of the Canadian Association of Crown Counsel. We represent the interests of over 7,000 crown counsel across the country, including federal crown counsel. Historically we've predominately spoken about workload and independence of prosecution services across the country. Today we'd like to talk a little bit about that and about this bill.
As a senior crown counsel prosecuting in Halifax, Nova Scotia, I'm intimately aware of the devastating effects of crime on victims and their families. As crown counsel, we get a front-row seat to all the terrible crimes committed and the wake of despair they leave. Beyond the economic costs, we know first-hand that thousands of lives are affected each day. We are well aware of the need for a victims rights bill.
Our hope is to aid in the creation of a strong victims rights bill while adding suggestions that will help the bill fit into our justice system. Our suggestions are intended to help it pass constitutional scrutiny and allow the justice system participants to work efficiently and effectively while they're doing their jobs. To that end, we agree with the submissions of my learned friend Mr. Eric Gottardi, from the CBA, and hope to add our own perspective to this.
As a front-line crown prosecutor, I can speak to the current practices and ensure the committee and everybody around the table that we're doing everything we can so victims get maximum access to the justice system. When I say everything we can, it's partly a resource issue and partly a time issue. I'm going to get into that a little bit more, but I can't stress enough the amount of time it's going to take to fulfill all the obligations. It's not a matter of not wanting to or not having the will; it's a matter of having the resources. And that's really where we're at.
We hope the victims rights bill will augment the practices we already have in place. Perhaps they are inconsistent across the country. Maybe this will add some consistency to what we're already doing.
I can say that a large part of our job is working with the victims of crime. That is our job. It's the part of our job that we enjoy the most. We actually sit down with the victims of crime and their families and explain to them what's going on. We keep them in the loop. In cases of homicides, we bring the victims and their families into our offices. We talk to them. We sit down. We spend time with them. We let them know about the process and we let them know about the progress but without tainting the prosecution. That's important. Unwittingly, victims of crime can sometimes get information that's actually detrimental to the prosecution and/or the investigation.
Once again, it's an essential part of our job to keep victims informed and give them a better understanding of the criminal justice system.
If it pleases the committee, I'd like to comment a little bit about some of the clauses highlighted by our friends at the CBA and some of the clauses that don't necessarily cause concern but that should at least be reviewed and looked at a little more closely.
On right to information, we understand that every step of the way, from the first day it happens until the person is sentenced, victims should be involved. We believe that wholeheartedly. I don't think you'll find anybody who disagrees with that. But information regarding the investigation at the police level and certain types of information are sacred. We can't have that passed on, and there can't be a mechanism in order for that to be passed on. It's an issue that affects the investigation and the police and them being able to do their jobs fully and properly.
We've had several cases of witnesses and victims leaking pertinent information, which has only impeded the investigations even further, inadvertently or otherwise. There are also victims who wish the matter would go away. They don't want to go any further. They work at cross-purposes with that information, bringing it to the accused and to other parties, posting it on the Internet. Some use information as a conduit straight to the accused.
Finally, when we have victims who are witnesses, too much information often can taint the process itself. I'll give you a brief example of a victim/witness who has information. They've witnessed something themselves. Well, if another individual has witnessed the same thing and they share that information, the credibility of those witnesses goes down, and so does our prosecution. It's very problematic, and it has happened, inadvertently or otherwise.
It's an issue we have, and we have to be careful, because ultimately, for the most part, victims of crime would like to see a successful prosecution. I don't mean successful as in “conviction”. For us, a successful prosecution means something different.
In regard to the notification of a guilty plea, I won't read out the entire section. As my learned friend has already pointed out, this section should be struck. We do everything we can to inform victims, especially victims of violent crimes, of the status of their case. This is both a workload and a delay issue. Our system operates in an emergency room style of atmosphere. We do the best we can to triage as many cases as we can in the best possible fashion as they come in. While we make efforts to contact victims on the most serious matters, just before or after a plea, it's simply impossible to inform them on all those matters that don't quite reach the top.
Aggravated assault, sexual assault, child assault, murders: those we take special care with. But when somebody who has committed an assault causing bodily harm on their wife walks into our courtroom on a busy arraignment day and wants to plead right there, be sentenced, and just do the sentence—and it happens on a regular basis—the duty that's mandated is that we have to inform the victim. We have to step outside of court. As you know, to inform properly, we have to take not minutes but somewhere upwards of half an hour to an hour to sit down, and that's if you get them right away.
What would normally happen is that the case would get put over to another day. The flavour of the week is that—my friend could speak to this—when they come back, they no longer want to plead guilty. They withdraw their guilty plea, they fire their lawyer, and we head off to trial. Between the time that happens and the trial, of course, evidence starts to dissipate. There are delays. There are arguments. We'd like the discretion to strike while the iron's hot, like we do now, and have faith that when we recommend sentences, we recommend them within the range, given the fact that there's an early plea. That's really all. We're not trying to take away from the bigger cases. Nobody pleads to those on the first day. Even if they did, we'd still put them off to make sure that we do inform victims of serious crimes.
However, the way it's written right here, unfortunately, it includes a lot of things that just come in and have to be triaged. It's just a matter of the way the courts work right now. Once again, it's not a matter of not wanting to contact every victim. It's just a matter of resources. We have the will; we just need the way, I guess.
With regard to non-disclosure of witness identity, my friend pointed out that on the application of a prosecutor in respect of a witness, it also says—and maybe I have a different one—“or on application of a witness”. I can't really mince words here: this section can be viewed as unconstitutional. Leaving aside the right to a fair trial, the accused has a constitutional right to disclosure, and it could actually raise a witness' status to that of confidential informant.
It's trite to say that an accused has the right to know the victim's name, record, and any possible bias they may have. I'll give you a quick example. Believe me, this happens. The victim has an axe to grind, so they proceed to make up a story implicating the accused. The victim has a lengthy record, including perjury and several unfounded allegations against other parties, as recorded by the police. The accused has a right to know this, the right to full answer and defence. It goes without saying.
There's a goal of protecting victims that's laudable, in our view, but untenable in this current form. Perhaps it can be reworded to suggest that the victim's address, phone numbers, and place of work, for example, don't need to be disclosed at an open hearing. However, certainly the type of information.... The person has to know their name, record, and whether they have any bias against that person.