Ontario urged to review all pediatric autopsies since 1981
Last Updated: Thursday, March 27, 2008 | 12:55 PM ET
The Canadian Press
Ontario is being urged to review all pediatric autopsies performed in the province that resulted in criminal convictions since 1981 in the wake of the "dreadful" work performed by disgraced pathologist Dr. Charles Smith.
A public inquiry probing a series of mistakes by Smith that sent innocent people to jail has been looking at his work from 1992 to 2002, and an internal review of Smith's earlier cases from 1981 to 1991 continues.
But lawyers representing a number of people who were convicted on evidence given by Smith say the province needs to go further, in part because Smith consulted in many cases in which his involvement was likely never recorded.
In a written submission to the inquiry, the group says the number of cases could be as high as 300, but notes that an expert panel has already examined 45 of them.
The Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted and lawyers representing William Mullins-Johnson are also calling on the province to review all previous "shaken baby" and fatal child head injury cases that ended in criminal convictions.
Earlier on Thursday, Smith said it would be "unfair" for a public inquiry to find he was solely responsible for any alleged miscarriages of justice that may have resulted from his work.
Smith says he made "significant" errors in only five of the 19 child-death cases examined by an Ontario public inquiry into pediatric forensic pathology.
He also says mistakes he made in three cases -- one of which wrongly sent William Mullins-Johnson to jail for the death of his four-year-old niece -- were also made by other pathologists.
Smith's claims are contained in a written submission released Thursday by the Goudge inquiry, which is expected to deliver its final report April 25.
The pathologist also admits he gave evidence that was "confusing, unscientific or overly dogmatic" in five cases.
But he says most of his errors in court were the result of an "adversarial" justice system, a lack of formal training and a culture that allowed "more expansive" testimony.
