TORONTO - Ontario must widen its review of pediatric autopsies in the wake of the "dreadful" work performed by disgraced pathologist Dr. Charles Smith, whose fall from grace as a top expert in Canada was paved by a series of errors that sent innocent people to jail accused of killing children.

A review of all pediatric autopsies performed in Ontario since 1981 that resulted in criminal convictions - not just Smith's - is needed if the province wants to restore confidence in its forensic pathology system, said lawyers representing some of the victims whose convictions were largely based on Smith's findings.

The number of cases could be as high as 300, although 45 have already been examined by an expert panel, the group noted in its 84-page written submission to a public inquiry probing Smith's mistakes.

It's also calling on the province to review all previous "shaken baby" and fatal child head injury cases which ended in criminal convictions, echoing the recommendation of experts who testified at the inquiry.

"There have been consistent problems in Dr. Smith's cases," the submission from the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted and the Mullins-Johnson Group stated.

"His forensic pathology was dreadful, his evidence was overstated and emotive, and his conclusions were wrong."

Ontario Attorney General Chris Bentley said it's too early to say what should be done, even though the ministry has already taken steps to improve child death investigations and re-examine conviction cases involving Smith.

"It wouldn't be appropriate of me to comment on any of the specific recommendations or suggestions made by parties," said Bentley. "I'll await (Justice Stephen Goudge's) recommendations to make comments."

The inquiry is already examining Smith's work from 1992 to 2002, and an internal review of his earlier cases from 1981 to 1991 is ongoing.

But the province needs to go further, partly because Smith - once regarded as the dean in his field - consulted on many cases where his involvement was likely never recorded, the group said.

Smith, who directed the Ontario Pediatric Forensic Pathology Unit at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children for more than two decades, was so highly regarded by his peers that they were "unwilling to challenge him" and often sought him out for consultations, the group said.

In the case of William Mullins-Johnson, who was wrongfully convicted for the rape and murder of his four-year-old niece, a respected forensic pathologist retained by the defence conceded that he was wrong in accepting Smith's opinions "so readily."

Meanwhile, Smith's submission sought to weaken the foundation of the inquiry, saying the pathologist did not err in 20 cases over the last decade, 13 of which resulted in criminal convictions.

It conceded that Smith made "significant" errors in five cases, but that many of his findings were "considered reasonable" at the time the case was under investigation.

The 323-page submission also deflected blame in one of his most high-profile cases, claiming that Smith's errors in the Mullins-Johnson case and two others were also made by other pathologists.

Smith, who delivered a tearful apology to Mullins-Johnson during his emotionally charged testimony in January, has consistently couched his regret over the errors in self-professed ignorance of the justice system and limited education in pediatric forensic pathology.

Similarly, his 323-page submission maintained Smith wasn't solely to blame for any miscarriages of justice that may have resulted from his work.

"The public deserves to understand the full scope of the systemic failures, which ought not to be hidden behind an exaggeration of Dr. Smith's alleged inadequacies," the document stated.

Smith also gave testimony that was "confusing, unscientific or overly dogmatic" in five cases, including that of Brenda Waudby of Peterborough, Ont., who was charged with beating her toddler to death in 1997, his submission stated.

A 14-year-old boy who cared for the girl on the evening of her death was later convicted of manslaughter.

To conclude that Smith was solely responsible for evidence that led to the arrest or convictions of any of the caregivers investigated in the child-death cases is "patently false" since other medical experts gave similar opinions, the submission by Smith's lawyers stated.

Many of the mistakes Smith made in court were the result of an "adversarial" justice system, a lack of formal training and a culture that allowed "more expansive" testimony, it added.

The provincial government has already moved to create a specialized "child homicide team" comprising nine senior Crown prosecutors with expertise in child death cases. Senior ministry officials have also indicated they're willing to fast-track a process that determines whether those who may have been wrongfully convicted will be granted extensions to appeal.

AIDWYC and the Mullins-Johnson Group are also urging Ottawa to abolish the slow process by which potential miscarriages of justice are currently reviewed by the federal government, and replace it with an independent mechanism modelled after the British Criminal Cases Review Commission.

The Ontario government should step up to the plate sooner rather than later, given the "outrageous" misconduct heard during the year-long inquiry, which included the misplacing of key evidence and a lack of oversight by Smith's superiors, said NDP justice critic Peter Kormos.

"No amount of money can compensate these people," he said.

"But there surely has to be a gesture recognizing the incredible and regrettable pain that wrongly convicted persons of child deaths have suffered."

The inquiry into pediatric forensic pathology heard from nearly 100 witnesses, and about 4,500 documents were submitted. The deadline for Goudge's final report, which was expected to be delivered in April, has now been extended to Sept. 30.

LIKE IT?  LET OTHERS KNOW

Thanks for participating!

Be the first to recommend - Sign in now


See what other people are recommending - Popular Stories