Proper resolution

I write to express concern about Rick Conroy’s April 22 article, How did this happen?.

The article contains serious errors and omits critical information. First, the offence to which Mr. Sweet pleaded guilty is misdescribed. His plea was to a breach of s. 85(2) of the former Child and Family Services Act and related to his tenure as a Director of the Prince Edward CAS, during which time the CAS committed a contravention of the Act.

Further, Mr. Conroy criticized the exercise of discretion by Crown Attorney Peter Napier and stated, “If any crime merits a long and drawn-out prosecution, it is this one.” It is quite unfortunate, indeed inexplicable, that Mr. Conroy did not include in the article the finding of Justice Stephen Hunter that, “I am more than satisfied, that both in action and in character, Mr. Sweet does not warrant a criminal conviction.” In other words, Mr. Sweet committed no crime, something that your readers are entitled to know.

More fundamentally, Mr. Conroy misunderstands the purpose of a criminal prosecution. Where charges are laid, and (unlike in this case) a reasonable prospect of conviction exists, a criminal prosecution is ordinarily carried to its conclusion in the expectation that it will ensure that offences against the Criminal Code are the subject of conviction and punishment by the Court. The Crown must always consider whether a continued prosecution is in the public interest.

To have used this criminal prosecution as “an extensive probe” of what went on within PECAS would have been an abuse of the Court process. Other legal avenues existed for that purpose. For example, the provincial government might have called a public inquiry into these tragic events but chose not to do so.

The resolution of this lengthy prosecution amounted to both a proper exercise of prosecutorial discretion, and a result which appropriately addressed accountability and the public interest.

WILLIAM C. MCDOWELL
COUNSEL TO WILLIAM SWEET