BishopAccountability.org
	One Trial for Macdonald That Was Always the Plan: Crown By Trevor Pritchard Standard-Freeholder January 27, 2009 http://www.standard-freeholder.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1405645 It was always the plan to proceed with one trial involving eight alleged victims of Rev. Charles MacDonald, a former eastern Ontario Crown attorney told the Cornwall Public Inquiry Monday. Justice Robert Pelletier said he took a "calculated risk" in deciding to join two different sets of charges because he felt that would bolster the prosecution's case. "As soon as I found out there were five other complainants, my mind was made up," Pelletier testified. "In my view, it was a calculated risk, and one that favoured the prosecution, ultimately." Pelletier, the Crown attorney for Prescott-Russell from 1989 until 2005, was assigned to prosecute MacDonald in 1996 after a conflict of interest forced the local Crown to step aside. That same year, MacDonald had been charged with seven counts of sexual abuse involving three men. Additional charges were tacked on in 1998 after five more men came forward, all claiming they'd been abused as boys by the former St. Columban's Parish priest. Despite the risk for delay, joining the charges would allow a judge or jury to hear the evidence of eight alleged victims all at once, rather than three in one case and five in another, Pelletier said Monday. Doing so would also cut down on the number of different versions of the same story, Pelletier added, as victims in one case would not have to be witnesses in the other. "I had that feeling (to join the charges) very strongly," he told Citizens for Community Renewal lawyer Helen Daley. "In fact, I felt it was my duty to do so." Pelletier did not see the case through to its conclusion, however. In 1999, he removed himself from the prosecution after it became possible that local Crown attorney Murray MacDonald - a colleague and good friend - might have to take the stand. The charges of the eight complainants were joined by the new prosecutor - a decision Pelletier said Monday he wholly agreed with. Charges involving a ninth alleged victim were added in 2000. But Charles MacDonald's defence team successfully argued that their client's rights under Section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been breached, and the priest left court a free man in 2002. Pelletier told Victims Group lawyer Dallas Lee that he felt the prosecution was "on very solid footing" and didn't think at the time that an application to stay the charges would succeed. "But obviously there was a risk," he added. " And I calculated that risk, assessed the risk, and chose to proceed with what I felt would be a much stronger case - with eight complainants, as opposed to three in one case and five in the other." Pelletier said he was concerned with delay from the first time he spoke with David Silmser, the first alleged victim of Charles MacDonald to come forward. The former Crown wrote in a personal note that Silmser was "abusive and vulgar" during a February 1996 conversation. After that, he agreed only to speak with Silmser through his lawyer - because if Silmser threatened him, he would have to remove himself from the case. "In those circumstances, it would be impossible for me to represent the Crown with Mr. Silmser as a complainant," Pelletier said. The inquiry is looking at how a number of public institutions, including the provincial justice system, handled historical sexual abuse allegations. Hearings resume at 9:30 a. m. - - - EXTENSION GETS TURNED DOWN Cornwall (Staff)--Lawyers at the Cornwall Public Inquiry will not be getting an additional month to prepare their final submissions. Commissioner Normand Glaude said Monday that a request delivered last week to the Ministry of the Attorney General for more time had been turned down. Eleven parties with standing at the motion had argued that the February deadlines imposed by the province in October 2008 were too restrictive and did not allow enough time to prepare comprehensive final submissions. A ministry spokesperson said they were asking the commission to stick to that October deadline. The refusal by the Attorney General's office means that written submissions are due Feb. 17, with oral submissions required by Feb. 27.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.