 |
| Michael Crowley |
I was first appointed to the Parole Board of Canada (then called the National Parole Board) in 1996 as a part-time member. That meant I would travel from the Toronto area, where I lived, to Kingston, where the regional headquarters of the board is located, once or twice a month. During those weeks I would read files and make decisions based on the available information, or participate in hearings, usually in prisons close to the city.
Before I was appointed a full-time member in 1998, I can recall very few occasions when there was a letter or a victim impact statement in an offender’s file and perhaps only one time when victims observed a hearing. Prior to my appointment to the Parole Board of Canada I had been a regional vice-chair of the Ontario Board of Parole for three years. The work is quite similar as the Correctional Release Act applies to both provincial and federal inmates — the only difference being the sentence length. Anyone sentenced to more than two years is the responsibility of the federal government.
And in those three years there was virtually no communication from the victims of crimes or their families.
One notable exception was the mother of a teenage boy who had been sexually assaulted by one of his teachers. She did not write or communicate with the board but instead chose the coldest day of the year to picket, along with a friend, in front of the Guelph Correctional Centre, where the parole hearing for the man who had molested her son was being held. The superintendent of the correctional centre sent her to see me, as he saw this as a board issue, and my office was in the old superintendent’s residence, which was on the same grounds.
I invited her in and gave her a cup of tea while she warmed up. She provided me with information about the crime and its impact on her family. But that information was not available to the three members who were actually conducting the hearing.
Unfortunately, there was no mechanism available for her to have provided this information in advance of the hearing, nor were there any staff whose responsibility it was to work with victims.
The process was different when I was appointed to the Parole Board of Canada, but I still had very little sense of victims, and while I recall that there were one or two staff members who dealt with victims, I saw little evidence of what that entailed.
To be clear, the definition of a victim is “a person who has suffered physical or emotional harm, property damage or economic loss as a result of a crime.” (Section 2 of the Criminal Code of Canada).
This lack of involvement with victims of crimes changed in 1999 when victims were permitted to read victim impact statements both at court for sentencing purposes and at parole hearings.
This right is further set out in the Canadian Victim Bill of Rights (S.C. 2015 C. 13, 32).
In general, a victim is entitled to receive information about the offender and be advised as to the offender’s location as well as all parole board decisions.
A victim may submit information at any time related to safety concerns, risk to re-offend and/or the effect the crime had on them, their family or the community.
Importantly, a victim may request that the board impose special conditions to further reduce the potential risk. A victim may choose to provide a victim statement detailing the physical, emotional or financial impact of the offence that was committed had on them and any other information they believe to be relevant to the board’s decision-making. In particular, as such a statement will assist members to understand the seriousness of the offence and to assess whether the offender recognizes the harm they have done.
Any information provided by the victim to the board will be shared with the offender at least 15 days prior to a hearing or file decision, with certain restrictions in order to protect the victim.
A victim has the right to attend a hearing, either in person or remotely, and to present a statement that outlines the continuing impact the offence has had, as well as any risk or safety concerns that the offender may pose.
The parole board, in each of its regional offices across Canada, has a number of staff assigned to victim services, as does the Correctional Service of Canada (CS). Board staff are initially contacted by anyone who believes they meet the definition set out in legislation, and then continue to communicate with and assist those individuals, especially as a decision date or hearing date approaches. If victims choose to attend hearings, board staff will always accompany them, and in some cases more than one staff will attend, if the number of victims is large.
Parole hearings can be quite emotional and when I was conducting a hearing with victims in attendance, I would always make it clear that if the emotional content is too taxing, that any of the victims inform the board staff, who would then signal me that a recess was required. There were times when a victim would simply leave the hearing room on their own, but if that happened, they would not be permitted to re-enter during the hearing, as it would have been too disruptive.
With respect to procedural expectations on the day of hearings, victims enter the hearing room after everyone else, including the offender, is already seated. In most hearing rooms in Ontario, the door is either at the very back of the room or on the side of the room, but behind the offender’s view. Inmates are instructed not to turn toward victims for obvious reasons, and I tried to ensure that victims were not sitting directly behind the inmate, both for safety reasons, and for me, I was concerned that I would lose my concentration if I could too easily see or discern the reactions of victims to a line of questioning.
After the hearing, in general, the board members deliberate and come to a decision. They then give that decision orally, as well as providing the main reasons or rationale for the decision. At that point, the victims are the first individuals to leave the room. There is often a delay, particularly when there is a large number of victims or other observers, because they must be escorted to another area of the institution before the inmate is allowed to go through the same area.
When it is a negative decision, the hearing room can become tricky as the inmate could be quite agitated or even angry and just want to walk out — but they can’t, and the members are sitting only a few feet away on the other side of a table. The members generally do not say anything as the hearing is over and no longer being recorded and tensions can remain fairly high and become an uncomfortable time.
This is the first half of a two-part series.
Michael Crowley has a BA from Syracuse University. He spent more than 40 years in various positions within the criminal justice system in Canada. Before retiring Crowley had been a member of the Parole Board of Canada for 21 years. Contact him via CrowleyMichael167@gmail.com
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.