Canada

Winnipeg Free Press - PRINT EDITION

Verdicts upheld despite jury-selection flaws

By: Colin Perkel

Posted: 12/22/2012 3:24 AM | Comments: 0

TORONTO -- Prosecutors might have acted improperly in vetting potential jurors but the misconduct was not serious enough to quash a series of convictions, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Friday.

Still, despite rejecting five appeals stemming from three separate cases, the country's top court made it clear it wasn't condoning the behaviour.

"While the conduct of the police and the Crown was in some respects improper and should not be repeated, there is no basis for concluding that they conspired to obtain a favourable jury," the court ruled in one of the cases.

"What occurred did not constitute a serious interference with the administration of justice, nor was it so offensive to the community's sense of fair play and decency that the proceedings should be set aside as a miscarriage of justice."

In one of the cases, three men -- Ibrahim Yumnu, Tung Chi Duong and Vinicio Cardoso -- were convicted at trial in Barrie, Ont., of first-degree murder for two gangland killings.

In the others, Troy Davey was also convicted of first-degree murder in Cobourg, Ont., for deliberately killing a police officer, while James Emms was convicted in Barrie of fraud.

Christopher Hicks, the lawyer who represented Davey, said he was "very disappointed" with the ruling.

"I thought this was very much a live issue for the criminal justice system," Hicks said.

"It went to the heart of the system in that it went to the heart of the jury-selection process."

The defence argued on appeal that the Crown had obtained an unfair advantage by having police do extensive background checks on potential jurors.

The Crown used the information -- which was not turned over to defence lawyers -- to screen out jurors who might have been less favourable to the prosecution, the defence argued.

In the Yumnu case, the Crown did fail to tell the defence about the checks, the high court decided.

However, there was no reasonable possibility the jury would have been differently constituted had the pertinent information obtained from the vetting process been disclosed, the court said.

"The appellants received a fair trial by an impartial jury," the court found.

"There was no appearance of unfairness that would shake the public's confidence in the administration of justice."

The high court adopted similar reasoning in all the appeals.

Despite the finding, Hicks said the Supreme Court had left the door open to further challenges if "something more egregious" were to arise.

The issue of jury background checks has surfaced across the country and several interveners -- including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and Ontario's privacy commissioner -- were involved in the appeals.

Normally, background checks can be done on prospective jurors to ensure a criminal conviction has not rendered them ineligible to serve on a jury. However, the checks in dispute went well beyond that.

While the Ontario Court of Appeal had previously upheld the convictions in the five cases, the province's top court did take a different view in a decision last month.

In that case, the Appeal Court ordered a new trial for a man convicted of kidnapping and slitting a woman's throat because it found prosecutors and police acted improperly when it came to jury selection.

-- The Canadian Press

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition December 22, 2012 A17

Factual inaccuracy? Something missing? Help improve our journalism.

Know about news? Share your story suggestions, photos and video.

Spelling error? Punctuation problem? Send us an email if you’ve found a typo.

More Canada

Undock

You can comment on most stories on winnipegfreepress.com. You can also agree or disagree with other comments. All you need to do is register and/or login and you can join the conversation and give your feedback.

Have Your Say

New to commenting? Check out our Frequently Asked Questions.

The Winnipeg Free Press does not necessarily endorse any of the views posted. By submitting your comment, you agree to our Terms and Conditions. These terms were revised effective April 16, 2010.