Justice Distorted, not Delayed

The Steven Truscott case was all over the headlines last week.  The Federal Justice Minister has asked the Ontario Court of Appeal to review the case. 

Mr. Truscott was convicted in 1959 of raping and murdering a 12 year old girl.  He was 14 at the time.  He was sentence to be hanged.  Eventually, his sentence was commuted to a life sentence and he was paroled in 1969.

The Supreme Court of Canada reviewed his case in 1966 and upheld the conviction.  However, since 2000, there has been a lot of pressure to review his case, with suggestions that the evidence, in hindsight, supports an acquittal. 

I was upset at the nature of the media coverage.   A major Toronto radio station introduced the story by saying that Mr. Truscott will have to wait a little longer to finally clear his name.  The Globe and Mail headline on Friday was “Justice Delayed”.

Lesson #1 in criminal law:  a person is innocent until proven guilty.  The necessary consequence is that a person, once proven guilty, remains guilty until it is proven that the guilty verdict cannot stand.

Lesson #1 in reporting on criminal trials:  a person is innocent until proven guilty and the person is not to be tried in the press.  Media are not supposed to give opinions about the guilt or innocence prior to the verdict.  Reporting, by its very definition, must be an unbiased review of the facts.  (Of course, an opinion column can be used to provide opinions, biased as they may be.)

Let’s apply those lessons to what happened last week.  “Justice Delayed” implies that Mr. Truscott is innocent and has been wronged by the justice system.  Excuse me, but he is, at the moment, a convicted murder.  The Supreme Court of Canada reviewed his case 38 years ago and upheld the conviction. 

The Justice Minister was asked to look into the case.  One of the options for him was to deny any relief.  In fact, Mr. Truscott has won an opportunity to plead his innocence once again.  He’s a lucky guy – it has happened only 20 times in the last 25 years.

The Ontario Court of Appeal is now going to review his case again.  They may uphold the conviction.  They may not.  If they do, he remains a convicted murderer.  (Having used the headline “justice delayed” now, will the headline be “justice denied” at that time?  It would have to be, to be consistent.)

It was improper, in my opinion, for the press to say that he has not obtained justice or that it has been delayed.  “Justice delayed” presumes that he is innocent. 

Of course, he may be exonerated.  If that is the case, then, and only the, can we say that he will have finally obtained justice.  Until that time, all he can be accurately described as doing is seeking a reversal of his conviction.

By claiming “justice delayed” and presuming innocence, some of the media has actually distorted justice.