BishopAccountability.org
	How Much Is Too Much for Sex Abuse 'Victims'? Inquiry Hears Debate on How Gruelling Court Experience Should Be By CP Ottawa Sun [Canada] February 20, 2007 http://ottsun.canoe.ca/News/BreakingNews/2007/02/20/3647928.html Cornwall — Emotionally fragile witnesses should not be subjected to undue harm in order for the Cornwall Public Inquiry to get to the bottom of historic and systemic child sexual abuse, commission officials heard Monday. A number of parties at the inquiry assessing claims of systemic sexual abuse in the area suggested victims and alleged victims should be questioned by lawyers who represent not only their abusers but also public institutions with whom the witnesses had some form of contact. At the same time, parties suggested, witnesses should not be further victimized by the process. "What works in a criminal courtroom may not be successful at this inquiry," said David Bennett, an attorney representing an Ottawa-based victims group. Bennett pointed to the fact that under cross-examination in a criminal court, lawyers will often put questions to witnesses in order to test their credibility and memory surrounding events such as allegations of sexual abuse. "But the public will not be well served if erroneous evidence is left unchallenged," he said. On Monday, Commissioner Normand Glaude asked for submissions from parties as to how cross-examinations could continue in order to ensure the inquiry hears as much evidence as possible from as many witnesses as possible. In the past few weeks, at least two witnesses who have testified at the inquiry have suggested the process of cross-examination left them feeling as though they have been revictimized. David Silmser, a man who received a $32,000 settlement from the Alexandria-Cornwall Roman Catholic Diocese in relation to allegations of abuse he made against Rev. Charles MacDonald, once walked out of the hearings room and on another occasion refused to continue his testimony after it was determined the process was taking an emotional toll on him. David Petepiece, who said he was the victim of an attempted sexual assault at the hands of an Anglican minister in the 1950s, wrote a letter to the inquiry after his testimony was completed, suggesting the process of cross-examination was a form of revictimization. Neil Kozloff, an attorney for the Ontario Provincial Police, said Monday when witnesses are permitted to testify about how they felt during their journey within the justice system, it opens up the possibility they may say disparaging things which parties have the right to refute. "Witnesses are invited to criticize the actions of those (agencies and individuals) with whom they dealt," said Kozloff. "Counsel who represent (these agencies and individuals) should be permitted to challenge witnesses on those opinions and feelings." David Sherriff-Scott, an attorney representing the Alexandria-Cornwall Roman Catholic Diocese, said the proper administration of justice would be negatively impacted by any sweeping restrictions on both the content and quality of cross-examination. "All counsel are being fair and respectful in asking questions in a most difficult situation," said Sherriff-Scott. "But the process only works when it is full and complete."
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.