Dear Professor Hughes and Professor Boudreau,
Thank you for your invaluable learned contributions to the
public understanding of the Charles Leblanc case. Your example in speaking out on important
public issues, and that of Professor Mathew Hayes, show how relevant the University has
become to upholding the values of our civilization in changing and confusing
times.
There remains quite a bit of uncertainty round the issue of
an inquiry. These are very complicated
processes which need to be very carefully established to achieve specific ends. The present circumstances are particularly
challenging involving a particular case of police singling out an individual
for extraordinary treatment, but with very far-reaching implications for the
public interest – freedom of expression, the status of bloggers and the
confidentiality of their personal files, and treatment of the vulnerable- to
name a few.
While it has been a very difficult experience for Charles
LeBlanc, arguably it is primarily the public interest aspect primarily that motivates
the need for an inquiry under provincial law.
For this reason, the mandate and scope of the public inquiry should be
determined by the Attorney General taking into consideration a diversity of representative
views, not only those of the aggrieved party.
I am not suggesting a formal process, but there should be some opening
for comment and critique before the key parameters of an inquiry are set.
I do not speak for Charles Leblanc. However, I believe his objective is not so
much personal redress other than recognition that a wrong was done to him and
possibly some reasonable restitution. I believe
Charles’ objective in his dealings with the police have been consistently to
further the public interest in, among other positive goals, the proper use of
police power particularly as it affects disadvantaged groups in society.
As a starting point, I would like to see something along the
following lines:
The coming provincial inquiry into
the Charles Leblanc case should be structured and mandated broadly to address
all facets of our criminal justice system to ensure it will in future deliver
justice according to the constitution, individual rights, and the needs and
expectations of the broader community.
The instinct is often to limit an inquiry in process and scope,
particularly where individual culpability may be in issue. I suggest this would be a mistake and detract
from the proper objective f the inquiry.
The inquiry should be established to find solutions, not to assign
actionable fault. The inquiry should act
as a truth and reconciliation commission to dig deeply into all facts related
to Charles’ and similar experiences of abuse of police power and miscarriages
of justice, and to propose whatever changes are needed to create a justice
system that is as fair, equitable and effective as it possibly can be.
I realize that this would be a large undertaking,
particularly where the specific issues of the Section 301 event are already
complex. However, all of Charles' actions
take place, and can only be understood, in the broader context in which he places himself:
his political activism (Saint John 2006 arrest and trial), his political
reporting (2009 arrest and non-trial), his citizen reporting (Stafford case
2008), and his status as and advocacy for the vulnerable and disadvantaged in
society.
An issue that is certain to be addressed in an inquiry,
which has been almost ignored to date, is the role of Fredericton City Council
in the governance of the Fredericton Police Force. Council took the position early on in the Section
301 incident that it could not interfere with the actions of the Police,
relying upon the Police Act. This
position ignored several realities.
First, Council does have positive duties set out clearly in the Police Act to ensure the proper
functioning of the Police Force. Second,
it is well known that the Section 301 incident was only the latest in a series
of altercations between Charles and the Police stretching back for years. Well before the raid on Charles apartment in
January, 2012, it was clear that the Police were singling out Charles for
extraordinary treatment. There was clearly
a failure of police governance in the events leading up to the Section 301
arrest.
The question of police governance in New Brunswick was the
subject of study by a committee struck in September 2009 reporting in April 2011:
The objective of these guidelines
is to assist board members to better understand their role and
responsibilities, and also assist boards by identifying areas in which policy
should be developed and providing suggestions for the content and wording of
the policy. The guidelines represent the minimum standard of policy development
for boards within New Brunswick and should be referred to as best practices. Police
Governance & Oversight in New Brunswick- Policy Guidelines.
Unless I am mistaken, the “board members” referenced here
are, in Fredericton, the members of City Council, but there is no indication in
the document that Fredericton was represented on the committee, and no mention
throughout the events involving Charles Leblanc that Fredericton City Council
has any knowledge of the Policy Guidelines established by the committee.
Regards,
Peter Dauphinee
cc Attorney General Marie-Claude Blais
General Counsel Nathalie DesRosiers, CCLA
--
No comments:
Post a Comment