BishopAccountability.org
	Macdonald Lawyer Focuses on Notes By Trevor Pritchard Standard-Freeholder January 16, 2009 http://www.standard-freeholder.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1390184 The attorney for Rev. Charles MacDonald defended his involvement in a 2002 decision to switch judges in the retired priest's sexual abuse trial Thursday. Michael Neville took former assistant Crown attorney Lorne McConnery through sections of his notes which suggested Neville never specifically asked for Justice Dan Chilcott to take the reins of his client's trial. MacDonald had first been charged in 1996 by the Ontario Provincial Police with sexually abusing three boys decades earlier. Additional charges involving six new complainants were tacked on in 1998 and 2000. Chilcott was appointed after the first judge withdrew from the trial over a potential conflict of interest. In May 2002, Chilcott stayed all the charges against MacDonald, ruling the six-year delay had violated the priest's right to a trial within a reasonable length of time. On Wednesday, McConnery told the Cornwall Public Inquiry that Neville wanted to see Chilcott in charge of the trial -which had initially been set for March 18, 2002 - because he was "a judge he felt comfortable with (and who) would be good for the issues that we had." But Neville, who still represents MacDonald, made the case Thursday that McConnery's own notes showed his actions in a different light. In one excerpt, McConnery wrote about a discussion he'd had with Neville after the first judge stepped down. "You have recorded . . . my preference being someone 'like' Justice Chilcott," said Neville. "Yep, that's precisely what it says," said McConnery. In another excerpt, from March 5, 2002, McConnery wrote about a phone call he received from Mary Simpson, the regional trial co-ordinator. According to McConnery's notes, Simpson was calling to say scheduling issues meant MacDonald's trial would now be put off until late April. "I asked her if Neville had told her about wanting the trial judge changed," wrote McConnery. "And she said no." The fact the word "no" was in block letters suggested it was an "emphatic no," said Neville. "It was to reflect that that's what she said," said McConnery. McConnery, now a Crown attorney in Barrie, Ont., had been assigned to handle the MacDonald trial because he was from outside Cornwall. He and James Stewart, the regional director of Crown operations, had considered pursuing a motion to have all judges from eastern Ontario recuse themselves from presiding over the trial, since they felt Neville had a hand in Chilcott's selection. That concern, however, was never passed along to Senior Justice Douglas Cunningham, who appointed Chilcott. But with the intense public scrutiny surrounding the MacDonald trial, there should have been "serious consideration" given to informing Cunningham about the optics of installing Chilcott, suggested Victims Group attorney Dallas Lee. "I don't recall us having that kind of discussion," said McConnery, adding he had "no difficulty at all" with Chilcott's capabilities. After the charges against MacDonald were stayed, McConnery was asked to provide an opinion on whether there were reasonable and probable grounds to lay new sexual abuse charges against the priest. In 2003, Albert Lalonde had gone to Cornwall police alleging he'd been abused by MacDonald. The abuse, Lalonde told police, had come to him in flashbacks. The investigating officer, Sgt. Jeff Carroll, concluded there were holes in Lalonde's story, but asked McConnery for a second opinion. McConnery told Carroll his original decision not to lay charges was a "reasonable and appropriate determination." Coalition for Action attorney Frank Horn suggested McConnery's decision was made because he was done with the MacDonald case and wanted to "get out of town." McConnery strongly disagreed. "I've been (on the stand) three days now," he told Horn. "This is the first time I've thought somebody's trying to take a cheap shot." MacDonald was never charged in connection with Lalonde's allegations. McConnery's cross-examination continues when the inquiry resumes today at 9 a. m.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.