REPORT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO ON CERTAIN MATTERS RELATING TO KARLA HOMOLKA
THE HONOURABLE PATRICK T. GALLIGAN, Q.C.
ADR CHAMBERS 48 Yonge Street Suite 1100 Toronto, Ontario MSE IG6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL FOREWORD INTRODUCTION FACTUAL REVIEW TERM OF REFERENCE TERM OF REFERENCE NO. 1 NO. 2
17 52 114 192 192 204 214 215 219
TERM OF REFERENCE NO. 3 The Homicides Jane Doe .. TERM OF REFERENCE CONCLUSION EPILOGUE APPENDICES Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix "A" - List of persons liB" - Chronology interviewed ... dates NO.4
of certain relevant
nCIi - Exchange of correspondence setting out the resolution agreement of May 14, 1993 . . 240 "D" - Relevant portions of proceedings in the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) on July 6, 1993 .... . 247 "E" - Letter of advice to Green Ribbon Task Force dated May 26, 1995 . . . . 328 nFIi - Paper entitled Sexual Sadist n • nCompliant Victims
• • • •
Appendix Appendix Appendix
"G" - Letter from Professor Alan Young to the Attorney General dated July 13" 1995 " . 341
Many public comments have been made which imply that the Crown has shown favouritism in many towards Karla Homolka. This sentiment is
It can be summarized
that Karla Homolka got a "sweetheart treatment".
deal" and that
she was given "preferential
Because those implications of the persons
could be seen to cast aspersions who made the decisions, conclusion
upon the integrity
I should say something about them by way of
to this report.
The first decision, driven by sheer
to agree to a twelve year and not by a desire
Homolka differently the Crown prisoner's charges. was made, would dock
than any other criminal. that Karla facing
I have no doubt that Homolka first appear degree in the murder
have preferred with Paul
However, the with
her evidence, not have the
at the time the decision evidence to charge Paul
out of the deaths
French, much less convict him of them.
Distasteful three hundred to
as it is, the practice of giving
which has existed or a a
for over an is the
"di scount " to co-perpetrator Regrettably,
one and it is a legal one.
216 investigation requires and prosecution of crime is rarely easy and often
the taking of steps which are unpleasant. of their responsibilities, steps if
Nevertheless, prosecutors case, must it is
in the proper discharge take those di staste ful
a part icular
to do so and the steps taken are legal ones.
In the Paul It is a step
Bernardo case, the step was both necessary and legal. which has been taken criminals countless are countless times in the past to justice, will
and, if certain to be taken
to be brought
times in the future.
Serious information the brutal made the which
led it to the conclusion
that Paul Bernardo
killer of two young women. decision which to deal out with to
At the time that the Crown Homolka, so much the crucial
evidence, had not been found. whether they would ever be
At that time, the Crown did not know found. The evidence to prove Paul
was available to provide
if an agreement it.
with Karla Homolka
The Crown did not have the luxury to wait and see whether, some time in the indeterminate come from another source. future, the necessary In the meantime, the
evidence would Crown probably
lost the opportunity
to get it from her.
therefore, did what it had to do, and what it will have to do again and again in the future i it dea 1t wi th the ac compl ice . In the
light of what was known at the time, the Crown paid an acceptable price for Karla emerged Homolka's evidence. It was only when the
that the value of her evidence had been in possession not have dealt with
was diminished. on May have
If the authorities 14, 1993 offered they
of the videotapes her. They
for her evidence.
The second the purpose decision
made on May 18, 1995, was not made Karla Homolka. It was
taken to advance the Crown's case against was advocated over by two trial prosecutors forty years
Paul Bernardo. who, between The
them, had accumulated decision
of trial experience.
was made by four other
lawyers who between
them brought It was
over one hundred years of trial experience a tactical decision which
to the problem.
turned out to be right.
The risk that
was seen in charging Karla Homolka with the June 7, 1991 assault on Jane Doe was that serious damage would be done to the case against Paul Bernardo The benefit for the murders of Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French. of charging her was some uncertain increase in the
sentence which she was then serving. of charging prepared her was too great
It was decided that the risk I, for one, am not
to be taken.
to second guess that decision.
The persons who made these two decisions servants with well deserved reputations The implication that anyone
are long time public and probity. for
or more of them made his decision
218 the purpose of benefitting deal" or "preferential without Karla Homolka, giving her a "sweetheart
I reject it completely.