Archive

Wanted: a return to speedy inquests

April 13, 2016   ·   0 Comments

THERE WAS A TIME in Ontario when any type of suspicious death resulted in the immediate holding of a coroner’s inquest, the twofold objective being to determine the cause and obtain recommendations on how such deaths could be prevented.

Today, we still have a Coroner’s Act which permits inquests to be held, but they never are, at least in the immediate aftermath of the death.

In Orangeville, we waited three years after Adam Sprague’s mysterious death in a police cell before one was held, and almost that long before we learned the apparent cause.

Similar situations continue to exist just about everywhere, the latest being the case of a mentally ill man who was fatally shot last July by a thus-far-unidentified Toronto Police officer.

Had such a police shooting occurred 100 years ago, an inquest would have been held within 48 hours, and the coroner would have power to call all the needed witnesses, who would testify under rules that were more relaxed than those in a criminal court.

In those days the coroner’s jury could do a lot more than simply determine the cause of death and make recommendations on actions that should be taken to prevent recurrences. They could also point a finger of blame.

That being the case, inquests were always closely monitored by police, who could use the evidence tendered to support criminal charges.

In at least one case 125 years ago, the witnessed murder of a Dufferin farmer by his brother-in-law led not only to an immediate inquest but a jury verdict as to who was responsible, a preliminary hearing a few days later and a trial at which the judge ignored the jury’s plea for mercy and ordered the man hanged. It was only some time later that the execution was prevented, on grounds the killer was mentally ill.

The Coroner’s Act has long since been changed to prevent juries from pointing any finger of blame. They can still determine a cause of death and, far more importantly, can still make recommendations which, if adopted, would at least reduce the likelihood of recurrences.

Unfortunately, what was seen as a great improvement in the law aimed at preventing miscarriages of justice has instead led to the effective abandonment of inquests as an investigative tool.

Today, any death from a police shooting or of a person in police custody results only in a secretive investigation by Ontario’s Special Investigations Unit (SIU), which isn’t required to do more than determine whether criminal charges should be laid. And if charges are laid, no inquest is ever held until years later when all the court proceedings have concluded.

And so it is that last week we found the Canadian Mental Health Association adding its voice to a chorus calling for an inquest into the death last July of Andrew Loku, saying too many questions remain unanswered about the fatal police shooting that has been the focus of heated protests in recent weeks.

In a letter to the Ontario Coroner’s office, CMHA Toronto’s president said an inquest may be the only way the public will learn any details of the fatal shooting.

In a brief press release last month, the SIU announced that the unnamed officer would face no charges. The SIU director’s report detailing the decision remains secret, sent solely to the Ministry of the Attorney General.

A spokesperson for the Coroner’s Office told  the Toronto Star no decision had been made on an inquest, “as we are still awaiting some information.”

Mr. Loku, a hammer-wielding 45-year-old father of five from South Sudan, was shot dead last July in the hallway of his building, which had been  leased by CMHA to house people with mental health challenges.

In our submission, an inquest should have been held immediately, and not merely because, as the protesters have put it, “Black lives matter!”

If nothing else, the inquest would have given the jurors vital information on not just what happened but what measures might be taken to prevent such deaths in future. And it would undoubtedly have removed both the likelihood of widespread public protests and the ability of the SIU to prevent the public from learning the identity of the police officers involved.

Readers Comments (0)