 |
 Patricia Marshall (left) shows one of the windows in her home where she videotaped a young man masturbating outside at night (right). (Sun Media/Mark Bonokoski) |
TORONTO -- As apologies go, it wasn't much.
When Premier Dalton McGuinty admitted to "dropping the ball" yesterday for the Crown's failure to notify St. Catharines mother Patricia Marshall and her two daughters, that a criminal harassment charge was being withdrawn against their Peeping Tom neighbour, he did so in a scrum outside the legislature.
He did not do it inside the house.
Ergo, no record in Hansard. Ergo, no officiality.
And, worse, it changes nothing.
Trish Marshall agrees.
|
"While I feel 'honoured' that the premier saw fit to apologize to us, it does nothing to help us," she says.
"We remained trapped in a house that is not a home."
So, premier, let us ask the following:
Will Attorney General Chris Bentley now be asking why the senior Crown for Niagara North, Wally Essert, was handling this file, and why he personally showed up to withdraw the charge when, as top Crown, he has a number of assistant Crown attorneys at his command to do such grunt work?
What are your thoughts on the Peeping Tom case?
Was Essert coincidentally in docket court that morning, for example, when high-profile St. Catharines lawyer, George Walker -- famous for orchestrating the infamous "deal with the devil" plea-bargain arrangement for schoolgirl killer Karla Homolka -- just happened to show up representing James Cedar, the Peeping Tom?
Or had they met previously, one-on-one?
Will the attorney general be asking if this admitted failure to consult or notify the cops, or the victims, was simply a remarkable coincidence, or was it a deliberate act?
Will the attorney general be standing up in Queen's Park today to explain what the justification was for withdrawing the charge against 19-year-old James Cedar, rather than letting the courts do their job and, where appropriate, hand down a sentence that might require a rehabilitation order, as well as the inclusion of a peace bond or restraining order to protect the victims?
In a belated letter to Patricia Marshall, written weeks after the charge against Cedar was unknowingly withdrawn, Essert came across sounding more like a defence counsel than a public prosecutor -- telling Marshall that labelling Cedar with the stigma of a sexual offender would derail his attempts at developing "normal relationships."
The Sun, for the record, has a copy of that letter.
With that in mind, will the attorney general now be reminding Crown prosecutors that they are not the judges or the juries in this province, and that they have duties to the public to prosecute cases where the facts indicate a breach of the Criminal Code?
In this case, for example, James Cedar was caught red-handed by a surveillance camera installed by Patricia Marshall, his next-door neighbour, and so there is videotape evidence -- which can be seen on the Sun's website, and has now been shown on virtually every major television station in southern Ontario -- of his peering into the Marshalls' windows while masturbating.
As well, there also happens to be Cedar's confession to police, minutes after his arrest as the Sun learned, to making frequent forays into the Marshalls' backyard, peering through partially closed blinds, and seeing all three women -- Patricia Marshall and her two daughters, Lindsay, now 20, and Courtney, now 19 -- in various states of undress at various times, and then pleasuring himself.
The fact that he has a twin brother is nothing more than a red herring.
So, what now, premier?
Was your apology to the Marshalls merely a political manoeuvre to defuse the situation, or will you now order your attorney general to return to the pursuit of justice, and charge Cedar?
The charge of criminal harassment became part of the Criminal Code in 1993, and is usually associated with stalking, but is an umbrella charge that also encompasses prowling at night, and such lewd behaviour as voyeurism.
When Bill C-20 was being enacted, the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime noted that voyeurism -- which is what Cedar is undeniably caught doing on tape -- is a sexual disorder in which someone derives sexual gratification from secretly observing others undress or engage in sexual activity.
NO QUESTIONS ASKED
A department of justice's consultation paper noted that at least 20% of offenders go on to commit more serious sexual assault offences, with the victims resource centre recounting how serial killer Paul Bernardo began as a "Peeping Tom" and progressed to become a sadistic rapist and murderer in the very town the Marshalls call home.
When the charge of criminal harassment was dropped against James Cedar, however, there was no explanation given to the court.
It was simply withdrawn -- no questions asked.
Legal experts have told the Sun that laying a lesser charge against Cedar, such as prowling at night, would likely meet with failure since it is a summary charge that has to be laid within a six-month time frame of the alleged offence.
Cedar was originally charged in early February, which means that almost eight months has passed.
That said, however, those same legal experts note that voyeurism is a "hybrid" charge, meaning it can be processed either summarily or through criminal indictment.
This clearly gives the Crown its opening.
Question is, will it now pick up the ball the premier admitted was dropped and finally run with it?
Or is this where it gets fumbled again?
MARK.BONOKOSKI@SUNMEDIA.CA OR 416-947-2445