The Sad Truth about Victims' Rights

• Author: David M. Paciocco
• Pages: 353-382

CHAPTER

16

The Sad

Truth

about

Victims'

Rights

dangerously.

The

young

man was not

claimed

by

some inherent

vulnerability

that

left

him

susceptible

to

terminal

disease,

nor was

he

torn down

by

some "act

of

God."

He did not die as

most

of us

would

want, through

the

gradual

and

slow process

in

which

our

bodies

are so

well used

that

they ultimately

fail

in the

final

years

of a

long

and

full

life.

He

died young, leaving

a

fiancee

behind.

He

also

left

behind

his

termi-

nally

ill

mother

and his

father,

who

would

now

have

to

cope with

his

mother's death alone.

He

died pointlessly, tragically,

and

traumatically,

and

Marty Stoltz

was to

blame.

Jose Coelho

and his

wife

planned

to be

there

for the

sentencing,

so

they could experience closure

and see

justice done. They also wanted

to

participate, even hiring their

own

lawyer

to

speak

for

them

during

the

sentencing hearing.

A

"victim impact statement" prepared

by

Mrs. Coelho

was

filed

with

the

sentencing judge.

She

wanted

to

speak personally,

but

became

too ill

from

her

cancer

and was

unable

to

remain

at

court.

The

lawyer

whom

the

Coelhos

had

hired stood

up

during

the

sentencing

process

and

asked

to

address

the

court.

He

wanted

to

provide more

infor-

mation

about

the

dead man.

The

judge,

in the

absence

of

objection

by the

accused, agreed

to

listen,

but not

before imposing strict limits

on

what

the

lawyer

could say:

"I

will allow [Mr. Azevedo,

the

Coelhos'

lawyer]

to

speak

only about

the

victim.

No

submissions about anything else.

I

would

expect

to be

told about

the

relationship with

he and his

family

only."

Mr.

Azevedo said

his

piece, telling

the

judge about

the

great source

of

support

the

dead

man had

been

to his

family,

particularly

to his

mother, whom

he

cared

for in her

illness. When this

was

done,

the

judge

handed down

a

sentence that bitterly disappointed

the

Coelhos. Marty

T

he Coelhos lost their son. He died because Marty Stoltz drove

354 THE

ROLE

OF THE

VICTIM

Stoltz

was to be

jailed

for six

months

and

placed

on two

years' probation.

In

the

meantime,

their

son was

gone

forever,

denied

the

right

to

dance

at

his

wedding,

to

have children

of his

own,

to

cradle

his

mother

as she

passed

from

this

life,

and to

prop

his

father

up

when they buried her.

Unlike

most victims, Jose Coelho

did not

simply give

a

helpless

shrug

and

walk

away,

one

more person

who had

lost faith

in the

justice

system.

The

process

by

which

he

lost faith

in the

system

was

dragged

on

a

bit

first.

He

instructed

his

lawyer

to

complain

to the

British Columbia

Supreme Court.

He

wanted

a

higher-level judge

to set

aside

the

sentence

and

to

direct

the

trial judge

to let him

make submissions about

the

kind

of

sentence

that

Stoltz should get.

As a

victim

of the

crime,

he

wanted

the

full

right

to

participate

in the

process.

He

argued

that

by

preventing

him

from

participating more

fully

than

he

did,

the

judge

had

denied

him his

freedom

of

expression under

the

Charter.

The

Supreme

Court

judge,

Justice Saunders, ruled against him.

He

explained:

[T]he contest

in

criminal proceedings

is

between

the

state

and the

accused....

[T]he

keen personal

interest

of a

victim must

be

pursued

through other

lawful

forums,

such

as the

civil process,

that

may be

available.

I

find

that

Mr.

Coelho's rights

to

fully

express

his

strongly held

views

by all

lawful

means does

not

give

him the

right

to

audience

in

a

court

of

law. While

he is a

victim

of

this crime, neither

the

Criminal

Code

nor the

Charter

of

Rights

and

Freedoms

requires

that

he be

per-

mitted

to

speak,

in

addition

to

Crown counsel,

on the

severity

of the

penalty

to be

imposed.1

Think about

that.

Mr. and

Mrs. Coelho,

the

surviving victims

of

this

crime,

had no

right

to

make submissions about

the

sentence

of the man

who had

killed their beloved

son — no

voice,

no

standing,

no

part

in the

process

other than

to

describe their pain

and to sit on the

hard benches

of

the

courtroom like

any

other

spectator.

They were

told,

in

effect,

to

bring

their

own

civil suit

if

they wanted more. This

was a

criminal case,

and

it was a

matter

for the

Crown

and the

accused alone. They were

told

that

the

criminal trial into responsibility

for the

death

of

their

son was not

really

about them.

The

Victim's

Blood

but the

King's

Peace

Jose

Coelho's

bid for

greater involvement

in the

criminal process

was

des-

tined

to

fail.

It ran

headlong into what

may be the

most controversial,

yet

least

understood,

of the

founding principles

of our

current criminal jus-