Former federal Minister of Justice David Lametti rejects the thesis according to which he “broadened” the review criteria to allow former judge Jacques Delisle to obtain a second trial.
The former magistrate, convicted of murder in 2012, had failed in his appeals. Sentenced to life in prison, he used the extraordinary remedy of “judicial review”, which allows a case that could constitute a judicial error to be examined.
In 2017, the Criminal Conviction Review Group (CRRG) of the federal Department of Justice concluded that Delisle had not been the victim of a system error, even if errors had been made in his file. The most important is the destruction of the brain of the victim, Nicole Rainville, by the Forensic Sciences Laboratory. It became impossible to carry out in-depth second opinions. Despite everything, the GRCC believed that the man, now 88 years old, had been able to defend himself adequately.
If he suffered prejudice, the GRCC said, it was mainly because he was not honest with the authorities and made bad strategic choices – such as not giving his version to the jury at his trial. And the numerous new expert opinions, however relevant they may be, are not really new evidence not accessible at trial.
It was only in 2019, two years after the writing of this report, that David Lametti became a minister. Despite the absence of a finding of judicial error, and the absence of a recommendation to act in favor of the former judge, Minister Lametti ordered the holding of a new trial in 2021. The report, unfavorable to Judge Delisle , was made public on Thursday.
I never said he’s innocent. I could have sent the file to a Court of Appeal [ce qui est le cas devant des constats flagrants d’erreur judiciaire]. I sent the file back to the Superior Court so that the evidence could be re-evaluated.
Former Federal Minister of Justice David Lametti
Because the defense put forward half a dozen new expert opinions which could cast doubt on the first verdict.
“It’s a little too easy to say that I’ve broadened the criteria. As in every case, I asked for other opinions. And in the end, I felt that the case needed to be re-examined. People may agree or disagree, but I took my responsibilities seriously. I took the same measures as in the other files. I still think it could have been fixed [par un jury] before the Superior Court. »
During his four years as minister, he accepted the review of seven files. “It is not unusual for me to disagree with the GRCC, as I always have access to other evidence and opinions. »
He sought advice from former Supreme Court Justice Morris Fish, a prominent criminal lawyer who serves as an advisor on these issues. But Judge Fish having sat on the Court of Appeal when Jacques Delisle was a judge, he abstained.
“We sought an opinion from an eminent jurist outside of Quebec, to have a neutral point of view. An outside judge evaluated the case, and I then requested a second opinion from another eminent jurist of Morris Fish’s caliber outside of Quebec, to be certain. And in the end, I made my decision. »
The former minister, who left his position as MP for LaSalle–Émard–Verdun in January, is aware of the appearance left by his decision, which goes further than the opinion of the GRCC. But he did not change the criteria for the ex-judge, he assures. He acted in the same way in the six other cases where he ordered a referral to the courts of cases of people convicted “probably” following a judicial error.
The irony is that some accuse me of interference, even though I placed GRCC reform at the heart of my first electoral campaign in 2019.
Former Federal Minister of Justice David Lametti
It was he who ordered a commission of inquiry into the review of judicial errors in Canada. The commissioners, Justices Juanita Westmorland-Traoré and Harry LaForme, concluded that the current system was too slow, too costly for victims of error and not independent enough. The report proposed an independent commission, with its own investigative powers, which would be accessible, along the lines of those that exist in the United Kingdom.
David Lametti agrees with the harshest critics of the GRCC, too slow and too cautious in his eyes.
“It is clear that Mr. Delisle had access to resources that others do not have. The other cases I handled came from innocence projects across the country. » These cases are those of people without means. These “innocence projects” are often carried out pro bono by lawyers for prisoners who do not have the means to finance a case. This is the case of Daniel Jolivet, for example, who, unlike Judge Delisle, was able to prove that the public prosecutor had hidden evidence, witnesses, destroyed documents… but whose file does not even reach the second stage of investigation.
I completely agree with you that the current system is not fair. The minister cannot see each case, the analyzes take too long, that’s why I wanted to reform it.
Former Federal Minister of Justice David Lametti
The law is named after David Milgaard, who served 23 years for a murder he did not commit, and his mother, Joy. It was adopted by the House of Commons, the funding is reserved, all that is missing is the Senate vote.
“I promised David Milgaard before his death to change the system,” says the ex-minister… who hopes that never again will a minister be called upon to make these decisions.