Wrongful Convictions - The Process and Case Studies

Question 1

What is a ministerial review application?

Answer 1

Criminal Code: s. 696.1 Application
Extraordinary remedy of last resort

Question 2

What is the aim of a ministerial review?

Answer 2

Case review on grounds of miscarriage of justice

Question 3

Who can apply for a ministerial review?

Answer 3

Convicted persons
Dangerous/long-term offenders
People acting on behalf of such individuals

Question 4

When is the ministerial review application process available?

Answer 4

After rights to judicial review/appeals have been exhausted

Question 5

Which case defined the term “exhausted”?

Answer 5

McArthur v. Ontario

Question 6

Does an applicant need to appeal to the SCC to apply under s. 696.1?

Answer 6

No

Question 7

According to McArthur v. Ontario, what is enough to meet the condition that rights of appeal be exhausted?

Answer 7

Having appealed to the provincial court of appeal

Question 8

When did the Miscarriages of Justice Review Commission Act begin?

Answer 8

2023

Question 9

What is another name for the Miscarriages of Justice Review Commission Act?

Answer 9

David and Joyce Milgaard’s Law - Bill C-40.

Question 10

What was the goal of the Miscarriages of Justice Review Commission Act?

Answer 10

To review
To investigate
To decide what criminal cases should be returned to the CJS because they may represent a potential miscarriage of justice.

Question 11

What are two additional goals of the Miscarriages of Justice Review Commission Act?

Answer 11

Increase accessibility of this route to Black and Indigenous persons as well as women
To increase speed at which the cases are considered and returned to CJS

Question 12

What do we know about what will happen to the existing ministerial review application process?

Answer 12

Previous system relying on CCRG will be discontinued

Question 13

What do we not yet know about what will happen to the existing ministerial review application process?

Answer 13

When the Independent Review Commission will begin its work
Who will staff it
How its processes may be different or the same as the previous s. 696.1 process

Question 14

For how much longer will the s. 696.1 process remain in place

Answer 14

Until it is replaced

Question 15

What case initiated the Motherisk review?

Answer 15

R. v. Tamara Broomfield

Question 16

What was Broomfield convicted of?

Answer 16

Assault causing bodily harm
Aggravated assault
Failing to provide the necessaries of life
Administering a noxious substance to her 2-y/o son

Question 17

Which of Broomfield’s convictions were supported by two MDTL experts?

Answer 17

Aggravated assault
Administering noxious substances

Question 18

What was the conclusion of the hair testing in the Tamara Broomfield case?

Answer 18

Broomfield administered substantial amounts of cocaine to her son over a 14-month period

Question 19

What convictions did Broomfield appeal?

Answer 19

Those arising from ingestion of cocaine

Question 20

What fresh evidence was submitted on appeal for R. v. Broomfield?

Answer 20

Fresh evidence questioning the methodology and results of the expert evidence

Question 21

What was the result of Broomfield’s appeal?

Answer 21

Two convictions quashed and new trial ordered
Crown invited a stay and Court agreed

Question 22

What were the offences of which Joyce Hayman was accused?

Answer 22

Administering a noxious substance (cocaine) to her 5-y/o son with intent to endanger his life.

Question 23

Briefly describe the case of Joyce Hayman.

Answer 23

Director and manager of Motherisk testified cocaine was found in child’s hair
Hayman denied administering cocaine
Convicted June 1998 in judge alone trial
Sentence: 2 years less a day

Question 24

What fresh evidence allowed Hayman’s appeal almost 23 years after her conviction?

Answer 24

Motherisk reports showing the testing methods were flaws and inadequate for child protection/criminal proceedings

Question 25

Describe the case of Anthony Hanemaayer

Answer 25

Male broke and entered a residence
Armed with knife, entered bedroom of 15-y/o, mother scared him away
Mother saw him for 40 s in a dark room
Drove away in white car
Mother conducted own investigation
Construction company had an employee matching description
Report made to police, mother ID’d Hanemaayer from a photo line-up
Hanemaayer arrested for BnE and assault

Question 26

What were the clues that hinted a person other than Hanemaayer could have been the perp?

Answer 26

Hanemaayer did not own a white car, but a black one. Did not drive it to work.
Quit 5 days before assault
Hanemaayer’s photo was the least sharp

Question 27

What happened at trial day 1 of Hanemaayer?

Answer 27

Mother positively identified Hanemaayer as the Male who was in her home

Question 28

What happened at trial day 2 of the Hanemaayer trial?

Answer 28

Guilty plea entered
B&E and committing an assault
Assault while threatening to use a weapon

Question 29

What prompted the re-investigation of the Hanemaayer case?

Answer 29

Bernardo’s lawyer sent an email to Toronto Police listing 18 SA’s and other offences he believed had not been solved.

Question 30

What happened at the 2006 interview of Bernardo?

Answer 30

Confessed to the B&E and assault that Hanemaayer was convicted of.

Question 31

When was Hanemaayer acquitteD?

Answer 31

2008

Question 32

What was the “terrible dilemma” acknowledged by the court in the Hanemaayer case?

Answer 32

Waited for trial in jail for 8 months
Faced a further 6 years in penitentiary if convicted

Question 33

What was the “powerful inducement” faced by Hanemaayer that the court acknowledged?

Answer 33

By pleading guilty, Hanemaayer would not receive a penitentiary sentence

Question 34

What are 4 other lessons from the Goudge Inquiry in addition to “think truth”?

Answer 34

Importance of training experts and professionalizing the discipline
Improving oversight and accountability within the system
Ensuring effective communication within the criminal justice system
Educating criminal justice stakeholders about their respective roles

Question 35

Outline the case of Maria Shepherd.

Answer 35

1991 - charged with 3.5 y/o step-daughter’s death
1992 - guilty plea to manslaughter

Question 36

What were the conclusions of Dr. Charles Smith in R. v. Maria Shepherd?

Answer 36

Death was a result of abuse, involving a blow or blows to the head

Question 37

What was the fresh evidence that enabled Shepherd to appeal her conviction?

Answer 37

Expert evidence about the COD and MOD.

Question 38

What were the reasons behind the ONCA quashing Shepherd’s conviction and entering an acquittal?

Answer 38

Smith’s conclusions thoroughly discredited and guilty plea therefore not informed
Since guilty plea was not informed, it was not valid

Question 39

Describe the case of William Mullins-Johnson

Answer 39

Babysitting 4 y/o niece and put her to bed
Died during the night
Arrested for 1st degree murder and aggravated SA
Based on conclusion of Smith and two other doctors: niece strangled and victim of chronic sexual abuse

Question 40

Describe the eventual findings of Mullins-Johnson following his conviction

Answer 40

Fresh evidence: Smith’s conclusions were wrong
No evidence of assault, SA or murder
COD at trial (homicidal asphyxia) not supported by evidence
COD: undetermined

Question 41

Can the courts impose a finding of innocence?

Answer 41

No

Question 42

Why can’t the courts impose a finding of innocence?

Answer 42

When an acquittal is enters, the appellant’s legal innocence has been re-established

Question 43

What is the important policy reason for not recognizing a third verdict of “factually innocent”?

Answer 43

Impact on others found not guilty.