Dear Editor;
An adult violently sexually assaulted a child in that child’s community. A national leader in the church together with a long-time Pastor, local to the child’s community, intentionally intervened in the criminal justice process, which permanently altered the outcome of the criminal case in favour of the offending adult. How could these things happen?
The community the child victim grew up in shares strong fundamentalist beliefs. The victim learned and believed that they were born in sin, that anything bad that may happen to them is their fault and that they were destined for hell’s fires if they did not conform. They were troubled deeply by this, yet committed themselves to their community’s beliefs. For these reasons, the child victim did not share their experience of the sexual assault on them until they were an adult. This adult victim suffers extreme traumatic stress and chronic pain.
With the passing years, following the assault, they redirected their strong ability to commit in becoming whole, a long and arduous journey that continues.
Two years prior to the leadership intervention, the adult victim took the far too rare step of reporting the historical assault to their local police. The resulting investigation by the supportive police team reached a conclusion, with an Alberta Crown Prosecutor, to arrest and charge the offending adult under the criminal code. Thereby began the gradual engagement of the wheels of justice.
The offending adult was given a Judicial Interim Release with conditions by a Justice. Slow forward two years, nine hearings, nine adjournments, advancement from Provincial (Justice) Court to Court of King’s Bench, scheduling a trial date and jury selection.
Then, mere days before trial, the trial was adjourned. Defence Counsel for the offender requested the adjournment entirely as a result of a letter given to Defence Counsel that was from the church leader and the church Pastor.
The content of that letter implied that the victim was delusional. That letter caused Defence Counsel to advance a new defence strategy against the victim. The strategy would necessitate Defence Counsel seeking to access private health records of the victim.
The statements in the church leadership letter, along with the additional time afforded to Defence by the trial adjournment, provided an opportunity for Defence Counsel to garner support of their strategy of a deluded victim: The original police investigation statements from some of the witnesses were updated by Defence Counsel through a series of interviews, each of which countered the detailed descriptions of events documented in the victim’s statement to police. In a calculated move, Defence Counsel made these newly updated statements available to the Crown Prosecutor, knowing the likely outcome based on the law.
This disclosure was not required by law. The witnesses reinterviewed were exclusively close family members of the offender.
The Canadian criminal justice system is based on British Common Law, an eight-hundred-year-old system founded in a patriarchal, misogynist culture that functioned under horrendous stereotypes, particularly in the context of crimes of sexual assault. That foundation, complete with the stereotypes, exists to this day in the Canadian criminal justice system, despite some important, recent changes in the Criminal Code implemented in an attempt to balance some of the most egregious inequities.
A criminal case will not be heard in the Alberta justice system if the Crown Prosecutor believes there is reasonable doubt of a successful conviction. This is the law. So, effectively, the Crown Prosecutor is the first justice and jury hearing the case, even before the case goes to trial. This is a heady responsibility for a sole individual.
The Crown Prosecutor scheduled a meeting with the adult victim, which they knew to be regarding the next steps in the criminal case of the offender. The Crown Prosecutor opened the meeting saying the trial will not move forward as the charge against the offender will be stayed.
The reason given was that the updated witness statements introduced the legal concept of reasonable doubt, therefore a conviction was no longer assured.
The travesty of community is obvious here, the travesty of justice has more to reveal.
A little more background on the criminal justice system: A victim of sexual assault is called a complainant in the criminal justice system, not the victim. The complainant has no legal right to representation in the criminal trial.
The Crown Prosecutor does not represent the complainant, i.e. the victim, in the case. The Crown Prosecutor represents the State (the King, in fact) in order to protect the public and the State. It is unclear why the victim is not considered a member of the public. The offender is considered innocent until proven guilty. The victim is, therefore, considered guilty of lying unless the trial proves otherwise through convicting the offender. When charges are stayed, the innocence or guilt of the offender is not resolved, the victim remains guilty of lying in the eyes of the community.
The child victim, now adult victim, heard the details from the Crown Prosecutor of the church leadership’s letter given to Defence Counsel along with the updated witness statements for the Defence. Many of the statements given by the witnesses were factually incorrect, apparent through information available by way of documentation and knowledge of the witness family.
When the veracity of these statements was challenged with the Crown Prosecutor and that those statements can be readily disputed, the Crown Prosecutor stated that regardless of whether some, all or none of the witness statements were true or false, this would not change the concept of considering reasonable doubt and the Crown Prosecutor’s legal responsibility to stay the charge.
Therein lies the travesty of justice: The police investigators believe the victim’s statement. The Crown Prosecutor believes the victim’s statement and in the victim themselves. The offender, with their Defence Counsel, leveraged a significant design element, dare we say flaw, in the criminal justice system in order to avoid facing a Justice and jury for the sexual assault of the child.
The victim has no recourse in the criminal justice system in the decision to stay the charge.
Willow and Noel Thompson
