A news report in Winnipeg is stating that the province “is continuing to implement a security plan for Vincent Li.”
CTV Winnipeg claims that officials have stated “Additional security officers have been hired and trained, but there has been a delay in ordering them security gear, which has delayed allowing Li the escorted walks around Selkirk Mental Health Centre”
Statements attributed to these anonymous officials, are simply preposterous. Even when given consideration that they are alleged to originate from the same bureaucracy headed by the Minister of Justice Andrew Swan. Swan’s office certainly garnered some press with statements that Manitoba would fight allowing Vincent Li escorted walks… and then did nothing. Unless the press report is correct and the Department of Justice chose to delay the walks with juvenile and inexcusable reasoning.
I wonder what the press headlines will be when some lawyer decides to seek recourse from the Manitoba taxpayers for the trampling of Vincent Li basic human rights. “Salt in open wounds as Greyhound Bus Slayer seeks justice”
We are seeking a comment from Minister of Justice Andrew Swan office.
Administrative Assistant response from Minister of Justice Andrew Swan office:
On behalf of the Honourable Andrew Swan, Minister of Justice and
Attorney General, I would like to acknowledge receipt of your email dated September 23, 2010.
This matter falls under the jurisdiction of the Honourable Teresa Oswald, Minister of Health. I have taken the liberty of referring a copy of your correspondence directly to her office for consideration.
Less than 2 years after brutally murdering Tim McLean, Vincent Li will have his second Review Board Hearing on May 31,2010. The purpose of this review is to determine whether Vincent Li poses a continued threat to the general public
The Supreme Court of Canada has determined that the Review Board has an obligation to resolve when Vincent Li comes before them:
1. Vincent Li was found by the court to be “Not Criminally Responsible” for his action. Vincent Li does not have to prove anything. In other words: “properly read the section does not … impose a burden of proving lack of dangerousness on the NCR accused.”. There is no presumption of dangerousness in the law.
2. “Dangerousness” has a specific, restricted meaning of “a significant threat to the safety of the public”. This means there must be evidence to support the risk being real, and the physical or psychological harm being serious. The activity causing the harm must be criminal.
3. The Review Board has a duty to investigate facts which support release, as well as detention.
4. “If the Review Board fails to positively conclude, on the evidence, that the NCR offender poses a significant threat to the safety of the public, it must grant an absolute discharge”. In other words, if the Review Board “harbours doubts” or can not resolve whether Vincent Li is a significant risk to the safety of the public, they must unconditionally discharge as there is no legal or constitutional basis for confinement.
5. “As in all cases, the Review Board must make the disposition that is the least restrictive of the NCR accused’s liberty possible.”
6. The Review Board has an affirmative duty “to consider the accused’s personal needs”