Regina vs. McLeod et al in the context of Regina vs. Starr

The Fall 2000 Supreme Court of Canada ruling on Regina vs. Starr, and its jury charge commentary  says (paraphrased) juries in criminal cases must have heard evidence to indicate a high degree of guilt before convicting; and judges in criminal matters are responsible for delivering that message to juries. Moreover the Supreme Court of Canada suggests there have been previous failures on the part of judges when doing their charge to juries in major criminal matters. 

There is more than a reasonable likelihood the jury in McLeod et al applied the wrong standard of proof--astoundingly so. In all my work I would like to believe that juries would interpret evidence I gather and assign guilt within the context of clearly defined "reasonable doubt", but typically juries make decisions heavily weighted on whether they like the accused and their lawyers, or not. One has to bear that in mind before ever entering the court room. And that is the sharpest issue for McLeod et al. The accused and their lawyers were virtual pariahs in the eyes of an authorities-led societal mindset; and remain so today.

A hoped-for decision of parliament favouring relief for the convicted/accused needs not only a sophisticated legal argument to convince parliament that the original trial's outcome was unfair and unjust, but a prevailing belief must be instilled among sufficient lawmakers that the public would find a re-trial or other relief palatable, and further, Members of Parliament would need to first believe relief would be consistent with the prevailing common thoughts pertaining to so-called 'biker crime'. A re-trial is not too likely in other words.

Nevertheless, in all this it occurs to me that in advance of a plea to parliament for relief (which thus far is the only venue available to McLeod's accused), a campaign should be prepared by the defence team to inform the public that the deceased Bill Matiyek was not a hapless and helpless victim to be pined over as such by his community but was in fact a rogue of no less infamy than the accused; moreover he brought on his own demise with his own brand of malfeasance. This should be approached seriously. Failing to mold favourable public opinion certainly contributed to the defence's failure in McLeod et al and was a case-fatal error on the part of the defence team  in the Kinsella matter, as another example.

The form of the pre-Charter McLeod et al trial could not re-occur today or within the environment of the post-Charter era - (I would hope), but with the new thinking as regards to so-called organized crime; victim impact evaluation; **balance of probability favoured over requisite reasonable doubt in biker club-related matters; and the prevailing contempt for organized motorcyclists; a 'fairer' trial could not be had either! It will never be heard tabula rasa (with objectivity) in today's environment.

As outrageously unjust as is the outcome of Regina vs. McLeod et al in 1979, (e.g. Satan's Choice MC members accused in McLeod et al were associates to the killer within a cult environment favouring crime over lawfulness, a fortiori all associates are guilty as well.) it is nevertheless a sample of things to come in the new millennium. In other words, unfairness in the treatment of such types of matters is seemingly welcomed by at least the current law-enforcers and lawmakers; and whereas no supporting model is needed to nourish this unreasoned mindset, Regina vs. McLeod is enjoyed as such a model by the current authorities. Had the accused mounted a proper defence at the time, the prevailing winds might blow differently. Perhaps not. We'll never know.

The upshot of this, from my viewpoint, is that a blow is struck to the principals of liberty and justice allegedly enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when government leads society in branding as a pariah a certain large-scale subset of society and chooses to treat that group unfairly, wholesale. This is a mindset characterized by ignorance and crudity reminiscent of history's darkest lessons.

Micheal J. O'Brien