The crown and the defence weigh in on the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights
A parliamentary committee is hearing feedback on the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights Act, or Bill C-32.
One of the groups speaking against the proposed bill is the Criminal Lawyers' Association. Its members have a number of concerns about how it could change proceedings during criminal trials.
We checked in with the Canadian Association of Crown Counsel to see if it supports the legislation.
It turns out that while the crown and the defence might be at odds across the courtroom, in this case, they have both rendered the same verdict on Bill C-32.
Bill C-32 is a bill meant to enshrine and enhance the support given to victims of crime in Canada.
No one from the justice ministry was made available for an interview, but Prime Minister Stephen Harper spoke about the purpose of the bill when it was first tabled in April:
"The rights of criminals have received far more attention than the rights of their victims. Our government believes that victims of crime deserve and should have a right to information, a right to protection, a right to participation, and where possible a right to restitution."
The bill would change a number of regulations that govern court proceedings; for example, removing a spouse's right to testify against his or her partner, allowing for anonymous testimony in some cases, and ensuring that victims have more access to information about the investigation and the case as it progresses.
After it got second reading in the House, the Victims Bill of Rights Act was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for input from stakeholders across the justice system.
The defence
Howard Krongold, director with the Criminal Lawyers' Association, appeared in front of the committee to present some of his association's concerns. He's particularly concerned with a provision that would allow some witnesses to testify anonymously. He worries that it would limit the ability of the defence team to cross-examine the witness, which is a key part of courtroom procedure.
"This aspect of the bill isn't just about publication bans. Publication bans are actually quite common in criminal law," he told Jim Brown this week.
"What this bill is about, is allowing evidence to be given from secret witnesses who the accused will never know, and preventing the accused and the defence from knowing, not just their name, but also not knowing any identifying information."
Basically what would happen is defence counsel is going to find themselves cross-examining an anonymous, distorted voice, and that creates real problems about whether the accused is able to make full answer and defence.Howard Krongold, Criminal Lawyers' Association
Krongold says the idea would be a devolution of the justice system, and weakens an accused's right to due process and the presumption of innocence.
The Crown
The view from the opposite side of the courtroom is equally sceptical when it comes to Bill C-32.
Eric Woodburn is President of the Canadian Association of Crown Counsel, and he told Jim Brown he also has serious concerns about the impact the bill will have on his colleagues, and on victims.
"We take it as a source of pride to keep victims apprised, not only about the case itself but the process," he says. "In some areas of the bill, at least in our estimation, they've gone too far."
"We work in the public interest, at arm's-length, but in conjunction with victims of crime," he explains.
That's one of our biggest misconceptions, that witnesses and victims believe that we're 'their' lawyer. It's important that we have what's referred to as 'prosecutorial independence.' We're objective, dispassionate, and we work in the public's interest, not a person's interest.Eric Woodburn, Canadian Association of Crown Counsel
Woodburn says giving total access to all the information on a case could result in some of it trickling back to the accused, and the time involved in this level of mandated transparency could ultimately affect the ability of Crown attorneys to do the best job possible.
"I could say overall, if the bill remains the exact same way it is right now you're going to look at workload issues, I can see this delaying the justice system more so in the long run."
The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will continue to hear input on Bill C-32 next week. Once the final meeting concludes, the committee may submit amendments for consideration, or send the bill back to the House for a third reading.