Parole board barred victims' families from attending Bernardo hearing in person, lawyer says

The lawyer representing the families of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy — tortured and killed in two of the most heinous crimes in modern Canadian history — says the justice system has let them down again by denying the victims' mothers the opportunity to deliver their victim impact statements in person at Paul Bernardo's upcoming parole hearing.

In a letter sent to the head of the Parole Board of Canada (PBC) on Tuesday, lawyer Tim Danson argues his clients have a right to confront their daughters' killer in person.

"It was nothing short of gut-wrenching to experience the painful and heartbreaking reaction of Debbie Mahaffy and Donna French when they learned that the PBC was prohibiting them from representing their daughters (and themselves), and denying them the right to confront Paul Bernardo, in person, through the reading of their Victim Impact Statements," Danson wrote in his letter, which was shared with CBC News.

"This was truly a shock to their system. It was bone chilling — an insult so deep and hurtful that, (figuratively speaking), it set victims' rights back to the stone age."

The letter is addressed to Parole Board chair Joanne Blanchard, Correctional Service of Canada commissioner Anne Kelly and Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc.

Bernardo, designated a dangerous offender, is serving a life sentence for the violent kidnapping, sexual assault and murders of French and Mahaffy, who were teenagers at the time of their deaths.

He is scheduled to have a virtual parole hearing next week.

In his letter, Danson said the families' legal team was told recently their clients won't be able to attend the hearing because the board was "unable to ensure safety and security of all hearing attendees." He didn't provide further details.

According to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the board can restrict attendance if "the security and good order of the institution in which the hearing is to be held is likely to be adversely affected by the person's presence."

In his letter, Danson said he has never seen that threshold invoked in his four decades as a trial and appellate lawyer. 

"Who is the 'person?' Surely not the victims who have conducted themselves with absolute propriety and decency at Mr. Bernardo's previous two hearings. Are you referring to Mr. Bernardo — is he your concern?" he wrote.

"Even the worst offenders are smart enough to behave properly when appearing before the Parole Board claiming that they no longer represent a threat to public safety and therefore ought to be paroled. There has to be an air of reality to this."

He argued that delivering impact statements in person brings an "overarching human dimension and quality" to the proceeding.

"Relegating victims, against their will, to the impersonal, detached coldness of a computer screen is simply cruel," said Danson.