What the Bernardo parole board didn’t tell us
Transparency would boost our confidence
A parole hearing is all about public safety.
The mandate of the Parole Board of Canada is to “contribute to public safety” by making decisions about the reintegration of offenders to society.
It falls under the federal public safety portfolio. Its hearings are public. And it picks up where the judicial system left off, after the arrest and conviction of an offender, all of which is a public process.
Yet much of the information the board considers in making its decisions is kept secret from the public.
This was glaringly obvious at last week’s hearing for serial sex killer Paul Bernardo.
For more than two hours, Bernardo begged — unsuccessfully — for his freedom, even though he is a designated dangerous offender convicted of two counts each of first-degree murder, kidnapping, forcible confinement, aggravated sexual assault
and one count of committing an indignity to a human body for the rapes and murders of Leslie Mahaffy, 14, and Kristen French, 15.
On top of that he has admitted to manslaughter and raping at least 24 other women.
While the public learned some of the factors the two parole board members assessed in denying Bernardo’s request for day and full parole, there are volumes of information we will never know.
We won’t know because it is an invasion of Bernardo’s privacy.
Over and over again during Wednesday’s hearing at maximum security Millhaven Institution just outside Kingston, Bernardo’s privacy trumped the public’s right to know what he has been doing in prison for 25 years, what his mental state is and how much of a risk he poses. His medical records are secret. His institutional record is secret.
And though his hearing is considered public, no transcript or recording of it is available.
A media sketch artist wasn’t even allowed to draw a picture of Bernardo during the hearing.
The artist had to sit through the hearing, then go into another room down the hall to do his sketching by memory.
“What is disturbing to us is that the entire criminal justice system and, indeed, the civil justice system is completely transparent,” said Tim Danson, the lawyer who represents the French and Mahaffy families.
“At Paul Bernardo’s trial and dangerous offender hearing everything was transparent. So why, all of a sudden, we get to the other end of the criminal justice system and everything is not transparent?”
Danson spoke moments after the board announced it had denied Bernardo’s parole request.
“It struck us that when we’re hearing from the parole board members about certain reports, certain documents, or even when Paul Bernardo talked about a certain doctor and a certain assessment, we only know what we’re hearing at the hearing itself. That would never be permitted in a criminal trial or a civil trial.”
The ultimate irony is that Bernardo — a diagnosed psychopath and sexual sadist — is entitled to a private sex life while in prison.
There was a suggestion at the hearing that Bernardo has had conjugal visits while in prison.
A woman visited him several times in 2014 during a five-week romance. The hearing learned a psychiatrist became alarmed during that time because Bernardo began masturbating incessantly. And he spoke of having the same kind of sex with his new woman that he inflicted on his victims.
It was unclear to hearing observers if those were fantasies Bernardo had or if he was actually allowed to have sex with the visiting woman. Outside the hearing neither the Parole Board of Canada nor Correctional Services Canada would confirm if Bernardo had conjugal visits or not, citing his right to privacy.
The best answer the media could get was that some lifers like Bernardo can have conjugal visits. Even if they have been convicted of sex crimes.
Observers at the hearing also heard passing references to psychiatric assessments, therapeutic programs, an “autobiography” written by Bernardo that attempts to explain his criminal behaviour — none of which the victims’ families, the media or the public at large has access to.
Danson knows, because he has tried to get these sorts of documents, on behalf of the families. But his requests under the Freedom of Information Act have been rejected.
That’s why the French and Mahaffy families have joined the family of slain Toronto police constable Michael Sweet to ask for a judicial review in federal court demanding more transparency and accountability from the parole board and corrections.
In 1980, 30-year-old Sweet was shot by career criminal Craig Munro while investigating a break-in at a Toronto restaurant.
Munro and his brother Jamie kept the fatally wounded officer hostage while he bled to death.
Sweet’s widow and children have fought the parole system for decades and demanded access to Munro’s full file. But Munro’s privacy has been maintained.
“This is what we consider to be a very important freedom-of-thepress, freedom-of-information case,” said Danson. If Paul Bernardo wants his privacy rights then he doesn’t have to seek a public remedy and he can stay in jail.
“But the moment Paul Bernardo or Craig Munro or any other offender who has been convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison, the moment they seek that public remedy, their privacy rights are waived.”
He said the public is forced to take the parole board’s word that it properly assessed an inmate.
If the parole board really is making the best decisions for public safety, then transparency would boost our confidence.
We only know what we’re hearing at the hearing itself. That would never be permitted in a criminal trial or a civil trial. Tim Danson
Lawyer