TWO alleged criminals face the criminal justice system. Guy Paul Morin faces a murder charge, Sergeant Michalowsky is charged with perjury and with obstructing justice. Morin is vigorously and relentlessly persecuted (a prosecution which is polluted by the introduction of fraudulent evidence), while the charges against Sergeant Michalowsky were forever stayed, without a trial. Morin was tried, and tried again, and the only presumption that ever surfaced, concerned his alleged guilt. At the same time, the only presumption that surfaced regarding the charges against Michalowsky, concerned his alleged innocence or the understanding that he stood on the right side of the law. Indeed, the impartiality of Justice James Donnelly, who treated the keeper of the evidence against Morin, like a committed war hero, is absolutely astounding. According to the solicitous judge who evidently could not hide his admiration for men like sergeant Michalowsky; "Up in Goderich, where I come from, we say that the tougher the job the better you feel when it's finished.19 Acting as though he and Michalowsky were team members in a shared effort to convict a murderer, the impartiality that a judge is supposed to maintain was nowhere to be found, in the demeanour of Judge Donnelly. The evident alliance between a biased judge, a prosecutor who matter-of-factly dismissed evidence of police wrongdoing, and a police sergeant who had evidently obstructed justice, made an evident mockery out of the administration of justice. Indeed, in the final analysis Guy Paul Morin was not charged, tried and convicted. He was manipulated by an old-boys-network that defended the honour of engaging "battle" rather than the commitment to uphold the integrity of a legal constitution.

The earmark of a "cold warrior" like Judge Donnelly is the willingness to subvert defendant rights. So when a zealous Crown failed to disclose evidence which suggested that a suspect other than Morin was potentially responsible for the abduction of Christine Jessop, Judge Donnelly predictably defended the practice. This tendency to believe that the only purpose of gathering evidence is to secure a conviction, paves a definite path which substantially increases the likelihood of a judicial perversion. If for example, investigators simply highlight evidence which suggests guilt and distort, ignore or conceal evidence which suggests innocence, the only interest which is advanced is the opportunity to secure a fraudulent conviction. Fortunately, the Supreme Court of Canada has clearly denounced this evident opportunity to pervert justice. According to a recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling; "The fruits of an investigation which are in the possession of the Crown are not the property of the Crown for use in securing a conviction, but are the property of the public to be used to ensure that justice is done.20 Judge James Donnelly however, the person responsible for advising the jury that prosecuted Morin, clearly disparaged the spirit of justice which ultimately provides a defendant the opportunity to mount a fair defense. According to the Judge;

The process for determining guilt should not be frustrated by improper disclosure demands. The lawful process for determining guilt is not to be paralysed by unspecified and insatiable demands for disclosure, or by allegations of failure to provide that quality of disclosure -thereby creating a trial of the investigative and prosecutorial proceedings rather than a trial of the accused.21
The ramifications of this prejudice are very clear and very disturbing. If a trial is first and foremost a "process for determining guilt" , then why have atrial in the first place? Why not simply declare that a defendant is in fact guilty, and get on with it. Justice Donnelly's tendency to suggest that the bringing of a charge is equivalent to a conviction, violates every single worthy principle of justice, which is supposed to guard against arbitrary rulings. In the final analysis, Judge Donnelly is the perfect "hanging judge" , and the only disturbing lapse in the ability to perform his duty is the occasional wrongful conviction, or the "casualty of war" that he is evidently willing to tolerate.

19Globe and Mail, 31/7/92, p. A 7.
20Globe and Mail, 31/7/92, p. A 7.
21Globe and Mail, 31/7/92, p. A 7.





Thanks for the message