Home page

Text size

E-mail this page

IQALUIT
Nunavut's Chief Justice Robert Kilpatrick attacked the Government of Nunavut March 26 for putting the lives of those in the court at risk by failing to provide proper security, which is often provided by RCMP as a favour.

The RCMP have a reserved parking space at the Nunavut Court of Justice, but it was empty March 28 as a preliminary inquiry for accused killer Colin Makpah of Rankin Inlet was set to resume. - Casey Lessard/NNSL photo

"Enough is enough," Chief Justice Robert Kilpatrick said, according to a transcript of the proceedings, adjourning a manslaughter preliminary inquiry before proceedings even began last Monday. "Change is needed and it is overdue. Government has a constitutional obligation to ensure that this court, Nunavut's only trial court, is adequately resourced."

The case against Colin Makpah was the only case on the docket two days later when Justice Andrew Mahar took it over. After one day of proceedings March 27, the Nunavut Court of Justice was a virtual ghost town March 28 after he adjourned the case for the second time in three days.

After Kilpatrick issued his ultimatum March 26, the preliminary inquiry for Colin Makpah – accused in Donald James (DJ) Gamble's stabbing death in Rankin Inlet on Aug. 14, 2010 – went ahead under enhanced security March 27. Anyone seeking entry to Courtroom 3 was subject to screening with a metal-detecting wand under the watchful eyes of two sheriffs.

Once inside, an RCMP officer and a sheriff sat watchful in the gallery among Gamble's family and their supporters and a cadre of reporters. Unescorted as they are not in custody, Makpah and co-accused Abraham Nakoolak entered the court through the front door.

Although proceedings went ahead as planned that day, the RCMP officer watching the door in the morning said she was not available March 28. She was replaced by another in the afternoon, but no officers showed up March 28, so Justice Andrew Mahar stopped the proceedings Wednesday morning before they could start for the day.

The crisis comes at a time when the RCMP has its own resource issues. Officers have been shipped from Iqaluit to Iglulik and Kimmirut to cover for those involved in last week's shootings, and to other communities for holiday cover. Staff Sgt. Garfield Elliott emphasized the RCMP is not responsible for court security.

"Providing security for the courthouse is not among the services that the RCMP is contracted to provide," Elliott said in an e-mail to media. "In the past, and on a case-by-case basis, when resources are available, the RCMP has provided security for the courthouse. In the case of the ongoing preliminary inquiry, we are not able to provide this service."

In court March 26, Kilpatrick agreed.

"They are under no legal obligation to do so (provide security)," he said.

Mahar underscored this fact March 27, saying the RCMP were present "for today's purposes only."

"Sheriff Services lacks the equipment and the training to provide adequate in-court security," Kilpatrick said. "The absence of any real protection inside the courtroom exposes all justice system participants and court personnel to an obvious and very real occupational hazard."

In placing blame, Kilpatrick targeted the Department of Justice, noting "the government was put on notice in November of 2010 that the situation was urgent and change was needed. To this point, nothing has been done."

The government was expected to release a statement on the matter March 28. Sheriff's Services did not respond to a request for comment about its resources.

Neither Crown nor defence requested increased security, Crown prosecutor Chris Punter said.

"He (Kilpatrick) has his own reasons," Punter said.

"We're supportive of the court," Makpah's lawyer Shayne Kert told Nunavut News/North. "All participants (witnesses, officers of the court, spectators) need to be safe."

With both Makpah and Nakoolak – who will find out about his preliminary inquiry date May 7 – free on bail, RCMP do not have to escort them into the court, which they would normally do if the accused were in custody.

"The courtroom is often a difficult and volatile environment," Kilpatrick said. "This is particularly true in proceedings involving homicides where the family of the deceased can be expected to attend."

Without a solution in place, and almost a week of court time and travel costs lost, the preliminary inquiry did not appear to be ready to get back on track March 28. Lawyers were set to return to assignment court – where dates for cases are chosen – April 2.

We welcome your opinions. Click here to e-mail a letter to the editor.