Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Mr Hathway needs to start eating

I find it very disturbing when I read about the Wilfred Hathway case in Saskatoon. There has been excellent media coverage of the preliminary hearing by the Saskatoon StarPhoenix. The well balanced reporting of the antics of the prosecution and defence team left a clear picture that the actions of Wilfred Hathway by speaking up and yelling for justice were the actions of an innocent man demanding justice. Mr Hathway’s quick wit and responses in court left me with the impression that this is his way, that he is most comfortable with in expressing himself, just as it is with the prosecutor. Quick witted banter can diffuse a short wick to anger. All the participants seem to have a very short wick.

The StarPhoenix article by Janet French, was a one sided accounting of the proceeding in court that left the impression that Mr Hathway was just a trouble maker with no respect for the court. This view is reinforced when the only time that the judge walked out of the court was when Mr Hathway engaged in demanding justice.

Justice delayed is justice denied. How long has Mr Hathway been held in remand? Is it not a waste of time and money when a justice of the courts only way of keeping order in the court is to spend as much time in, as out of the court room? Mr Hathway is not someone out to disrupt the court, just so he can watch the judge walk out. The judge does this when Mr Hathway opens his mouth without the permission of the court.

Mr Hathway speaking out has been done clearly when witness and the prosecutor have entered evidence respecting documents and evidence withheld by the Crown that are documents and evidence that could be know to Mr Hathway, but not to his defence team.

Withholding documents and evidence by the Crown, from the defence, has been found by the Supreme Court of Canada to infringe on the right of an accused person to a fair trial. The rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to the Crown disclosure of documents are regularly ignored by the Crown who depend on the publics perception that if a preliminary court judge finds enough evidence to send the accused person to trial, there must be evidence of guilt. Documents and evidence that are deliberately withheld by the Crown, that may show that the accused person is innocent, is an act of malice.

It is an affront to justice and fairness. This practice is an insult to Canadians who have paid for the many inquires into wrongful convictions in Canada. The Inquires have found withholding documents and evidence by the Crown, that would support a plea of innocence is one of the main contributing factors in wrongful convictions.

The Hathway case is a slap in the face for past Inquiry Commissioners into wrongful convictions, the members of the Association for the Wrongfully Convicted, the Canadian Justice Review Board, for lawyers like Kennedy in Newfoundland and the many others who have and are working hard to expose the causes and the injustice of wrongful convictions in Canada.

The Hathway case is a window of opportunity for Canadians to witness an injustice in the making. I have no idea if Mr Hathway is guilty or innocent. I am prevented from making an informed decision based on a one sided preliminary proceedings that only allows the Crown to present a minimal amount of evidence of guilt and to withhold evidence of innocent. I only get one side of the story, the other side of the story is illegal for anyone to know about.

I became very worried when reading Justice Laing's fiat. Justice Laing made referred to the R v Lucas case. There was not anything, nothing from the time of arrest in the R v Lucas case that was not politically motivated, pre-planed and decided before hand by Saskatchewan Justice.

Justice Laing made reference to Johanna Lucas appeal and the statement by Justice Vancise who stated in his oral judgement “While it is not necessary for the resolution of this matter to comment”. The statement by Justice Vancise was made to pave the way for a future motion asking for the removal of Richard Klassen from his civil case. It is a travesty of justice for a judge to make any kind of reference to any of the Lucas case law after the Baynton judgement. Jailing Johanna Lucas was an act of malice.

The people in Saskatchewan were witness to the political interference in the administration of justice in Saskatchewan and the open bending and abusing of the process of the court, and the law, in what the justice system believed was justified to protect a police officer, officers of the court, and the public image of the court in the Lucas and satanic ritual child abuse cases in Saskatoon. Is the Hathway case a repeat?

Was the deception and corruption worth it only to have the Baynton judgement 10 years later that clearly showed parents that they need to tell their children that they can no longer trust a police officer or ask a police officer for help. Was the deception and corruption worth it when citizens of Saskatoon were yelling “baby **ckers” at Saskatoon Police Officers marching in a parade in downtown Saskatoon.

There needs to be a public inquiry into the satanic child abuse cases and what happened to the Ross children in Saskatchewan. Do it for Saskatoon Police Officers, and all police officers who daily put their lives in jeopardy for Canadians, their children and grandchildren. Children need to be able to trust a police officer, when a police officer violates that trust he should not receive a gold watch and pension, he should be held accountable for his actions.

I do not think that the hunger strike by Mr Hathway will help his cause. It may gain some much needed publicity but when the slanted news articles always start out by telling Canadians, who believe in the court process that Mr Hathway is accused of killing an 84 year old, and go on to describe his actions in court and at the same time not be able to say one word about the evidence then Canadians may perceive Mr Hathway to be guilty, not just another possible victim of injustice in a Saskatchewan court room.

The Hathway case is violating the trust Canadians have in the administration of justice and another example of why Canadians accused of a criminal offence need to go directly to trial and forget about their rights to a preliminary hearing.

Mr Hathway needs to start eating, his case is not lost and a long way from over, not eating is self destructive and one can not demand and continue yelling for justice on an empty stomach, shrunken and wrinkled up like a prune.

No comments: