The Howard Bunt Trial – A Summary

Thanks to my anonymous legal expert, I believe this would be a summary of the right and wrongs of the Howard Bunt Trial in For Better of For Worse. I am curious about which ones of the “wrong” list would be used for an appeal, if my anonymous legal poster would be so kind as to help me out.

What Lynn got right:

1. The sentence of "two years less a day" = maximum length of a correctional centre sentence, since if you're sentenced to two years or more, you're sent to a penitentiary.
2. If there's a chance that Liz and/or Anthony may be recalled as witnesses, they can't discuss their testimony. They may be recalled if there is defence evidence that wasn't addressed in their original testimony.
3. The inclusion of a Victim support counselor in the trial sequence.
4. A judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice is to be called "Your Hono(u)r".
5. There can be long delays between arrests and trials.
6. Liz presses charges for sexual assault.


What Lynn got wrong:

1. Howard would not have been sentenced on the same day that he was convicted: while it's theoretically possible, it simply wouldn't happen in this type of case. Howard should have been remanded -- probably out of custody -- for a period of approximately 90 days for a presentence report to be prepared to assist the judge in sentencing.
2. The judge has no power to order psychiatric treatment for Howard while he is in custody.
3. It's impossible for Howard to get psychiatric treatment while in custody because he's been given a correctional centre sentence and there aren't any psychiatric, educational, addiction treatment or other services available to inmates in correctional centres.
4. The judge has no power to recommend no parole -- he's usurping the function of the parole board.
5. Even if Howard was in custody, he would have been permitted to wear his own clothing during the trial.
6. The judge would have warned the spectators to make no verbal or non-verbal reaction to his verdict/sentence before he gave his verdict/sentence. Anyone who disregarded this warning, would, if he/she were lucky, be ejected from the courtroom. If he/she were unlucky, he/she might be cited for contempt of court.
7. Trial is “remanded” from early January to late February.
8. Liz couldn't be questioned on her sexual history in the circumstances of this case. See section 276 of the Criminal Code.
9. Victim support counsellors are a liaison between the Crown/police and the victim, keeping them advised as to the status of the case, advising them as to their role in the case, and referring them to appropriate support services if needed. They might sit with them in the special waiting room and might accompany them to the courtroom, but they certainly wouldn't be advising them not to speak to other witnesses -- that's the job of the Crown.
10. No appearance of a Crown attorney in the entire trial sequence.
11. The judge conducting the examination-in-chief himself.
12. The judge is unsashed while presiding over a trial.
13. The defence counsel is not gowned.
14. The coat of arms and Canadian and Ontario flags which ought to be behind the judge's dias.
15. There should be a portrait of the Queen on the side wall.
16. Witnesses only stand when they take their oath or affirmation when they first enter the witness box (aka "the box"). They are seated the rest of the time, except when the judge enters or exits the courtroom (when everyone in the courtroom must stand.)
17. The witnesses wouldn't be hanging around for days and days waiting to be called: they would be on standby, which means that they would have to leave contact information and be able to turn up on relatively short notice.
18. “Deposition” is not a term used in Canada. Oral statement.
19. There should be 2 police officers at the table during the oral statement.
20. The officers taking the oral statement should be plainclothes detectives at the station and not a uniformed officer.
21. There is no reason for the chair to be bolted down when giving an oral statement.
22. The oral statement is used to refresh the witness’ memory and was not shown to be used after having been taken.
23. The witness never meets Crown attorney until witness is in the box and Crown attorney starts examination-in-chief of witness. The Crown attorney would never meet with two witnesses at the same time for any reason, as it would look like collusion.
24. The idea the police would have the budget or inclination to place Howard under surveillance for a year.
25. Based on the evidence presented (1) a relative who won’t testify and (2) Liz’s assault where the main evidence is touched covered body parts, and ambiguous words or gestures accompanying the contact showing the accused's intent; the sentence is a little heavy.
26. Based on the implied evidence of 3 charges on similar facts where it was worse for the other girls than it was for Liz, the sentence is a little light.