#50: The Christine Jessop Case - How DNA Finally Solved a 36-Year-Old Murder

The "May Have Occurred" Threshold: 6 Surprising Realities Behind Canada’s New Miscarriage of Justice Law

Introduction: The Ghost in the Courtroom

When it comes to solving a mystery, we often treat the evidence like a jigsaw puzzle. There is a deep, human temptation to find a piece that looks like it should fit and, out of frustration or a desire for closure, take a fist and pound it into place. In the Canadian justice system, this impulse has historically left a ghost in the courtroom: the wrongfully convicted individual who remains behind bars because the system was unwilling—or unable—to admit the puzzle piece was forced.

Canada’s justice system is frequently cited as one of the best in the world, yet the reality is sobering. With hundreds of thousands of cases processed annually, even a near-perfect system leaves room for devastating errors. For decades, the mechanism to fix these errors was locked behind a high political and legal bar. That changed with the passage of Bill C-40, known as David and Joyce Milgaard’s Law. By establishing the independent Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission, Canada is shifting its approach from a state-centered process to one that finally acknowledges the human cost of a "forced fit."

1. The Power of a Mother's Persistence: Why it’s called "Milgaard’s Law"

The legislation is named after David Milgaard, who spent 23 years in prison for a 1969 murder he did not commit, and his mother, Joyce, who spent over two decades fighting for his freedom. The symbolic heart of this law traces back to a cold evening in September 1991. Joyce Milgaard held a vigil outside a Winnipeg hotel where Prime Minister Brian Mulroney was speaking. At that point, her crusade was 22 years in, and unlike the typical bureaucratic channels that had failed her son, this brief, human encounter moved the needle of justice.

The naming of Bill C-40 marks a pivot toward a more "human-centered" justice system. Prime Minister Mulroney’s reflection on that meeting underscores why persistence shouldn't be the only way to clear one's name:

"There was just something so forlorn about this woman standing alone on a very cold evening on behalf of her son, but in that brief meeting, I got a sense of Mrs. Milgaard and her genuineness and her courage. We all have mothers, but even the most devoted and loving mothers wouldn't continue the crusade for 22 years if there had been any doubt in her mind."

2. The "0.05% Problem": The Math of Hidden Injustice

It is a common misconception that wrongful convictions are so rare they don't require a dedicated federal commission. However, the sheer volume of the Canadian legal system suggests otherwise. Canada produces approximately 250,000 convictions per year. When we apply even a hyper-conservative error rate, the numbers reveal a massive "injustice gap."

The Injustice Gap: A Statistical Comparison

Metric

Figure

Annual Canadian Convictions (Estimated)

250,000

Theoretical Canadian Wrongful Convictions (at 0.05% error rate)

~450 per year

U.S. Estimated Error Rate (For Comparison)

3% to 6%

Total Review Applications Submitted in Canada (2003–2023)

187 total

This comparison highlights the scale of the problem. While US studies suggest error rates as high as 6%, even Canada's ultra-low 0.05% projection suggests hundreds of people are wrongfully convicted every year. Yet, over the last two decades, only 187 total applications ever reached the Minister of Justice for review. The new Commission is designed specifically to bridge this gap.

3. Lowering the Bar to Raise the Standard: The Two-Prong Shift

The most significant technical change in Bill C-40 is a subtle but radical shift in the "legal test" used to refer cases back to the courts.

The Old Standard: "Likely" Historically, the Minister of Justice had to be satisfied that a miscarriage of justice likely occurred. This created a "Catch-22": an applicant often needed to present new evidence to trigger an investigation, but they couldn't access that evidence without the investigative powers of the state. This barrier was insurmountable for marginalized individuals without the backing of high-profile "Innocence" projects.

The New Standard: A Two-Prong Test The Commission now operates on a more accessible two-prong test. It may refer a matter if:

1. There are reasonable grounds to conclude that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred; and

2. It is in the interests of justice to do so.

Critically, the "interests of justice" prong requires the Commission to consider the applicant’s personal circumstances, including whether they are Indigenous, Black, or from a racialized or marginalized community. By replacing "likely" with "may," the law acknowledges that the standard for investigation must be equitable and reachable.

4. "Tunnel Vision" is a Biological Trap, Not Just a Lack of Effort

The Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC) has identified "tunnel vision" as a leading cause of wrongful convictions. Crucially, the PPSC notes that this is an unconscious and biological process, not necessarily a sign of a "bad" investigator. It is a collection of mental shortcuts that occur in all human beings.

• Confirmation Bias: A powerful psychological process that causes an individual to unconsciously prefer information that supports a conclusion they have already settled on, while remaining skeptical of information that contradicts it.

• Hindsight Bias: Often called the "knew-it-all-along effect," this occurs when the brain unconsciously mixes new information with old, making a specific outcome seem inevitable or more plausible than it actually was at the time.

Because these processes are biological, they cannot be solved by simply "working harder." They require external, independent oversight to break the cycle of filtering in evidence of guilt and filtering out evidence of innocence.

5. The Dark Side of Good Intentions: "Noble Cause Corruption"

One of the most counter-intuitive realities in legal reform is that wrongful convictions are often driven by people with the best intentions. This is known as noble cause corruption. It occurs when investigators or prosecutors become so emotionally invested in "putting away" a suspect to protect the public or the victim that they begin to justify unethical shortcuts.

This is frequently exacerbated by vicarious trauma, where legal professionals internalize the horror of a crime, compromising their decision-making ability. As the PPSC findings suggest:

"It is important to note that these individuals believe they are working in the public interest and are generally not dishonest or unethical people... they may employ tunnel vision (unconsciously) as a means of coping with the situation by focusing on getting the accused off the street and behind bars."

6. Lessons from Guy Paul Morin: The "Weirdness" Bias

The 1984 murder of nine-year-old Christine Jessop provides a stark warning of how "tunnel vision" and "noble cause corruption" manifest in the real world. Under intense public pressure, police focused on Guy Paul Morin because he was perceived as a "weird-type guy" who played the clarinet. This "othering" acted as the filter described by the PPSC: investigators focused on his "weird" behavior as evidence of guilt while ignoring Calvin Hoover, a family associate with a criminal record who was only identified as the true killer via DNA in 2020.

The Morin case also highlights the precision required in the courtroom. Morin's first trial ended in acquittal, but the Crown successfully appealed because of a fundamental error in the trial judge's charge to the jury. He was then convicted at a second trial and spent years in prison before DNA cleared him in 1995.

To prevent such biases from taking root again, the new Commission is mandated to include diverse representation, including Indigenous and Black members. This ensures that a suspect's status as a "misfit" or an "outsider" no longer serves as a substitute for objective evidence.

Conclusion: Beyond the Verdict

The Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission is more than a legal fix; it is a social awareness tool. It forces us to confront the fact that our justice system is a human institution, and humans are prone to unconscious bias, trauma, and error.

If the old system was the "fist" pounding a puzzle piece into place out of a desperate need for closure, this new Commission is the "careful hand." It is the independent body that finally stops the pounding, looks at the piece, and admits it doesn't fit.

In a system built by humans, is a "perfect" verdict possible, or is the true measure of justice how we handle our mistakes?

© 2025. All rights reserved.