Within 24 hours of the release of the Goudge inquiry's report on pediatric forensic pathology in Ontario, a number of complaints have already surfaced about certain aspects of the commission's work.
THE WRONGFULLY ACCUSED
William Mullins-Johnson, of Sault Ste Marie, Ontario, has been the most high-profile of the province's false conviction cases over the past two decades. He was jailed in 1993 for the rape and murder of his niece, until, in 2005, a review of the original investigation by the pathologist on the case, Dr Charles Smith, revealed that the girl had not been murdered or raped, and Mr Mullins-Johnson was released on bail, and acquitted in 2007. Justice Stephen Goudge's report yesterday didn't go for enough, in Mr Mullins-Johnson's opinion. A Canadian Press article :
While the report found the failings of an "arrogant" forensic pathologist and his bosses were at the heart of the miscarriages of justice, William Mullins-Johnson said those responsible need to be held to further account.
"If they can't, then this whole thing of restoring public confidence goes for naught," said Mullins-Johnson, 38, who spent 12 years in jail for the rape and suffocation of his niece, who actually died of natural causes.
"They invented a crime. They pulled it out of their head and said, 'This guy is guilty of this.'"
Stephen Goudge's findings and 169 recommendations do offer a "little" comfort, said Mullins-Johnson, who added that his horrendous experience still gets "under his skin."
It should be noted that Justice Goudge's report was not mandated to recommend criminal or civil charges, but Mr Mullins-Johnson's frustration points to the fact that the Charles Smith saga is far from over. Victims of his errors and falsehoods must still be compensated, and many cases must still be reexamined before that can be accomplished.
Justice Goudge's report, despite its inability to get into criminal matters, did deal directly with the effect of Dr Smith's errors on Mr Mullins-Johnston. On page 5 of (PDF), the report recounts an exchange between the two men during Dr Smith's appearance to testify at the inquiry:
DR. CHARLES SMITH: Could you stand, sir?
(BRIEF PAUSE)
DR. CHARLES SMITH: Sir, I don't expect that you would forgive me, but I do want to make it -- I'm sorry. I do want to make it very clear to you that I am profoundly sorry for the role that I played in the ultimate decision that affected you. I am sorry.
MR. WILLIAM MULLINS-JOHNSON: For my healing, I'll forgive you but I'll never forget what you did to me. You put me in an environment where I could have been killed any day for something that never happened. You destroyed my family, my brother's relationship with me and my niece that's still left and my nephew that's still living. They hate me because of what you did to me. I'll never forget that but for my own healing I must forgive you.
Justice Goudge's section on Dr Smith's errors and manipulations of oversight is followed by a fascinating portrait of the doctor's character. Acknowledging Dr Smith's incompetence and deception, Justice Goudge writes:
... his deeply held belief in the evil of child abuse caused him to become too invested in many of these cases...
Dr. Smith is a complex multi-dimensional person. The terrible irony is that, in some ways, the negative attributes I have described were compounded by positive qualities. He was willing to take on difficult pediatric cases that his colleagues were not anxious to do. He has a sense of responsibility that led him to cooperate with the work of this Inquiry. In his evidence, he admitted many of his shortcomings that the evidence had laid bare. And, albeit much too late, he owned up to a great deal. In addition, the evidence is clear that others found him engaging. Support staff liked working with him, and many people found him a charismatic and effective speaker.
Despite Justice Goudge's thorough work -- particularly his explanation of the root causes of the justice system's disastrous failures and the commission's success at evoking an apology -- the report does not and could not deal with criminal issues, meaning Mr Mullins-Johnson cannot be entirely satisfied with the inquiry's results. But it remains to be seen if may yet be more fallout in regards to Charles Smith.
CHILDREN'S RIGHTS ADVOCATES
The organization Defence for Children International-Canada, a children's rights nonprofit, yesterday released criticizing the report's omission of an analysis and a plan about what to do with the siblings of children whose deaths were misclassified as murders or otherwise incorrectly investigated, some of whom are now in foster care or have been adopted or otherwise separated from their falsely accused parents.
William Sparks, the organization's president, and Les Horne, its executive director, wrote:
There is no process in place to identify some of these children even to let them know that their parent has been exonerated.
Defence for Children International-Canada calls on the Ontario Minister of Children and Youth Services to address the moral, ethical and legal obligations to young people whose lives have been devastated as a result of wrongful separation from their families. Specifically, we call for the establishment of a Task Force to deal with the child welfare issues arising from this Inquiry and to develop a process to remedy the harm done to some of our youngest and most vulnerable citizens.
TORONTO REPORTER HAROLD LEVY
Harold Levy, a retired Toronto
Star reporter, has been chronicling the case of Dr Charles Smith and the Goudge inquiry for months online, at . As part of a series he's written over the last 24 hours on the aftermath of the Goudge report's release, an aspect of the report that has so far gone mostly overlooked. Wrote Mr Levy:
... we should not allow ourselves to overlook Justice Goudge's finding that the Hospital for Sick Children - Dr. Smith's employer - "impeded the Office of the Chief Coroner's ability to provide meaningful oversight."
Curiously, the censuring of the renowned hospital is buried almost at the very end of the Inquiry's 278 page volume labelled "Systemic Review"and only takes up four pages in the Commission's overall report.
Goudge explains that from at least 1995 to 1997, Dr. Becker and others at Sick Kids had concerns about the timing and the quality of Dr. Smith's pathology work for the hospital.
"Notwithstanding their ongoing concerns about delays and diagnostic discrepancies in Dr. Smith's work, it appears that no one at Sick Kids took any formal disciplinary action against Dr. Smith, nor did they tell the Chief Coroner's Office about their misgivings."
Mr Levy is dissatisfied with Justice Goudge's failure, in his view, to take the hospital "much more firmly to task."
"Instead," writes Mr Levy, "he recommends that the Ontario Forensic Pediatric Pathology Unit should remain at Sick Kids - a responsibility which it has not demonstrated that it deserves."
Update, October 8: Asked for a comment on the Goudge report’s comments on the role of the Hospital for Sick Children, Judith John, the hospital’s VP communications and public affairs, told
Canadian Medicine, “Certainly we support the extensive work of the report, of the committee... which we feel was thoughtful and fair. We are definitely reviewing those recommendations, and are making appropriate changes to the processes.” Ms John refused to answer yes or no as to whether the hospital accepted the report’s conclusions about Sick Kids’s role in the failure to identify and report Dr Charles Smith pathology errors.