by arthur Weinreb, associate Editor,
November 4, 2004
Justice Minister Irwin Cotler took the easy way out last week when he referred the case of Steven Truscott to the Ontario Court of appeal for a review.
Truscott was 14 years of age back in 1959 when he was arrested and charged with the capital murder of 12-year-old Lynn Harper, who was found raped and strangled. Six months later, the teenaged Truscott was convicted and sentenced to death. The sentence was later commuted to life and Truscott was paroled in 1969.
The case has been looked at, examined, investigated and reported upon since 1966 when author Isabel LeBourdais wrote a book that caused the public to believe that the 14-year-old did not receive a fair trial. In that year, the Supreme Court of Canada conducted a review of the case after a referral from the then Minister of Justice. In an 8-1 decision, the top court declined to order a new trial.
The association in Defense of the Wrongly Convicted took up Truscott’s case in 1997 and new evidence was uncovered. Evidence that supported Steven Truscott’s version of events of the day that Lynne Harper went missing; that was known to the prosecution but not disclosed to the defense was uncovered. Evidence also emerged that known sexual predators were in the area of the murder, but were never investigated.
In January 2002, the then Minister of Justice appointed retired Quebec justice Fred Kaufman to carry out a further review. Kauffman’s report was completed this year and given to Cotler.
On the basis of Kaufman’s report, Cotler had three choices. He could have done nothing and allowed the conviction to stand or he could have ordered a new trial. Because of the passage of time, the Crown would undoubtedly have called no evidence in a new trial and Truscott would have been found not guilty of the heinous murder. But Cotler took the third alternative--he referred to case the Ontario Court of appeal for yet another review.
Cotler is, of course a good Liberal. and good Liberals thrive on taking the easy way out. The Justice Minister found that there may have been a miscarriage of justice and his rationale for referring the matter to the Court of appeal was that the court should decide, and not him. But if you want to get technical about it, simply ordering a new trial would have left the ultimate decision to the new trial court; if the evidence to proceed to trial isn’t there, then it isn’t there. It is not as if Cotler was making a finding that Truscott was innocent.
There would have been no political downside for Cotler to have ordered a new trial. Much of the population was either not born, too young, or not living in Canada when Lynn Harper was murdered in 1959. Canadians such as those who were asked to name the greatest Canadian and who could not go back any further than avril Lavigne have no particular interest in seeing Truscott remain convicted of the murder. The number of Canadians who think that Truscott should have been hanged or at the very least remain convicted is probably less than those who claim they have been abducted by aliens. So it is hard to rationale Cotler’s choice as being politically motivated.
Cotler’s decision was typical of the way Martin’s government makes decisions. By referring the matter to the Ontario Court of appeal, the Steven Truscott case was just another example of the government getting themselves off the hook by leaving it to the courts. This is no different than the Liberals’ refusal to enact legislation on same sex marriage, preferring to do nothing and leave it to the courts to decide.
The case against Steven Truscott has been reviewed to death. Cotler’s referral to the appellate court will mean one more review, more cost to taxpayers and more waiting for Truscott, his family and his numerous supporters. and although the Ontario Court of appeal could acquit Truscott outright, it is more likely that they will do what Cotler refused to do in the first place--order a new trial.
Mac Stienburg, Truscott’s close friend and former parole officer perhaps described Cotler’s decision best: “To put it mildly, I think it stinks. I think it was a pretty gutless political decision about 50 percent full of lack of political will and the other have full of chicken excrement”.
In other words, it was a typical Liberal government decision.