Court restores verdict; teen’s kin relieved

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 13/06/2009 (6149 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

VICTORIA — More than a decade after the bruised and battered body of 14-year-old Reena Virk was pulled from a suburban Victoria waterway, the country’s highest court has brought an end to the legal odyssey of one of her killers.

The Supreme Court of Canada on Friday restored a guilty verdict against Kelly Ellard in Virk’s 1997 murder.

In an 8-1 decision, the court rejected a 2008 British Columbia Court of Appeal decision that had overturned Ellard’s conviction from her third trial.

Ellard, who was 15 at the time of Virk’s murder and is now 26, was twice convicted, with both verdicts overturned on appeal. Another trial ended in a hung jury and a mistrial.

Suman Virk said the high court’s ruling came as a relief to the family that has sat through three trials and dreaded sitting through a fourth: “We were not looking forward to another trial. I really hope I never have to go into a law court again.”

Virk, who has dedicated much of her time since her daughter’s death to speaking to children about bullying and youth violence, said Ellard’s long journey toward justice has prolonged the grieving for her family.

And, she said she is relieved that they will not have to hear once again the disturbing details of Reena’s death.

“I just can’t imagine how she could have done such a horrible, wicked act.

“That’s what I’m left with: How could she do something like that?” she said. “I sincerely do hope that she can get some sort of mental help so at least she can come to facing what she’s done because up until now, she’s still in denial about taking Reena’s life.”

The B.C. Appeal Court threw out the jury verdict from Ellard’s most recent trial in 2005, saying the trial judge didn’t properly instruct the jurors on some inconsistent statements by a Crown witness.

Writing for the majority of the Supreme Court, Justice Rosalie Abella said the statements in question should not have been admitted in evidence, but were essentially harmless.

“These statements were of no consequence and their admission could not, in any way, be said to have had an impact on the jury’s deliberations,” she wrote.

Ellard has been behind bars for seven years.

— The Canadian Press