Innocent Until Proven Guilty: Why It's Important

In 1999, Sherry Sherret-Robinson faced the worst thing a mother can face: her son, Joshua, was found dead in his crib. The pathologist, Dr. Charles Smith, testified that, due to hemorrages in Joshua's neck, and a fractured skull, that he was murdered. Sherry Sherret-Robinson was convicted of killing Joshua by smothering him. She has served 10 years in jail for doing so.

Today, after the joint submissions of Crown and Defence, based on new expert evidence, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that Ms. Sherret-Robinson should be acquitted. The new reports suggest there was no skull fracture and the neck hemorrhages were in fact caused by Smith during the autopsy.The experts concluded there was no basis in the pathology to support Smith's inference the baby was deliberately smothered or suffocated, but that it can't be ruled out.

Instead, the autopsy findings and the fact that Joshua had numerous layers of blankets under, around and on top of him, "reasonably support the conclusion that death occurred by an accidental asphyxial means in an unsafe sleeping environment."

How sad. That's why, whenever people ask how I can defend someone I "know" is guilty, I always respond that because I'm not God, I never "know". Not being a pathologist, Dr. Smith's evidence might have seemed very persuasive to me and to Ms. Sherret-Robinson's lawyer.

Legal System in Crisis - Mr. Justice Rosenberg's Thoughts.

A big Helps Law Offices kudos goes out today to the great Mr. Justice Rosenberg for pointing out the flaws in our bail system and how innocent until proven guilty has fallen by the wayside. The Globe and Mail carried their article about it today. In addressing the Criminal Lawyer's Association luncheon Friday, this judge (who has, in my opinion, consistently kept out of the spotlight but who is one of the great legal minds of our time) became the conscience of the Canadian legal system.

Mr. Justice Rosenberg should be commended for taking the contrary view in a public debate that has increasingly favoured mandatory minimum jail sentences, withholding of bail on grounds where the public might be offended if the accused is released and a hysteria over "rampant crime" - when the crime rate has actually fallen.

It's true that marginalized populations are far more represented in the prison system than anywhere else. It's a crime. Aboriginal offenders, in spite of R v. Gladue just don't get a fair shake. We need to stop ignoring that Canada, for all our first world values and peacekeeping leadership on a world stage, has two worlds: a first world realm and a third world, quietly concealed on reserves and reservations.

He also commented on Legal Aid as being "a cornerstone of the system". If only Legal Services in British Columbia were properly funded. Any legal aid funding for serious matters is done at a rate of $83.90 an hour and all funding is capped - so often when a lawyer does an application properly on legal aid they're losing money. The system as it stands rewards the lawyers that do a poor job. It's why most lawyers I know who do legal aid are picky - because, in essence, it doesn't pay the overhead. It's a way of doing probono - an honour to the profession. 83.90 an hour?? You can't get this guy:



in to fix ANYTHING for 83.90 an hour!! More than that, the services offered do NOT assist those - like first offenders - who really need it. The tariff is so underfunded that there are unrepresented litigants facing significant lifetime consequences who are not receiving the help they need. It's a crisis.

Mr. Justice Rosenberg should be commended on his moral and ethical stance on these issues. It is imperative that we stop hiding behind Conservative governments to shirk our responsibilities. Legal Aid should be a priority in government funding; bail should not be denied for a fear of an uninformed public and mandatory minimums tie up trial time that would not otherwise be spent because discretion has been removed from judges.

Congratulations, Mr. Justice Rosenberg. Thank you for a reasoned entry into a debate that should be informed and passionate.