Two sets of potential jurors totalling 240 people have been set aside in a Barrie Courthouse amid allegations that the Crown is using improper means to vet them.

Defence lawyer Mitchell Worsoff applied this week to have the two lists of potential jurors scrapped on the basis that they are "tainted" because they were the subject of secret background checks that violate not only their privacy but Canadian law.

As late as yesterday, Crown prosecutor Karen McCleavewas not conceding that the lists are improper. However the wide-ranging background checks used to compile them was criticized last week by Attorney-General Chris Bentley.

"The Crown in no way concedes the merit of the application," McCleave told Superior Court Justice John McIsaac.

McCleave did consent to the withdrawal of the two lists, but only, she said, because the issue had been the subject of published reports.

The arguments were the subject of a temporary publication ban, requested by the Crown, which was lifted today after opposition by The Toronto Star and other media outlets. The Crown at first sought, then abandoned, a total publication ban on the proceedings.

The Crown also sought to seal the lists of jurors from the media, but the judge rejected their application.

"I am satisfied that the ends of justice would be better served by access to these records as this would permit the 'penetrating light of public scrutiny' to be shone on the prosecutorial practices undertaken in vetting these jury lists," McIsaac said today.

The lists contained personal comments on some potential jurors.

Beside their names are such handwritten notes as: "suicidal in 2001," or "Ongoing neighbour dispute — neighbour shot his cat" or "Witness to parent's domestic dispute. Dad is a drinker and assaulted her mother."

Other notations beside names indicate that they have some Highway Traffic Act convictions or have been charged, but not convicted, of other offences.

Many names had the note "ok" beside them, presumably signifying that they are acceptable.

Under Canadian law, unlike in the U.S., all that either side is supposed to know about potential jurors is their name, place of residence and occupation.

"They're using the American system through the back door," Worsoff argued. "There has been illegal conduct."

Critics have blasted the use of such wide-ranging background searches as an invasion of privacy. The issue is the subject of an application in the Court of Appeal in the case of convicted murderer, Ibrahim Yumnu, and has led to one mistrial in another Barrie case.

Worsoff had argued that the two jurors lists being proffered by the Crown should be scrapped and the jurors sent home and that the trial should start with a new panel.

"What I am saying is the Crown has personal information about jury members that they shouldn't," Worsoff argued.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Worsoff said that it was only on May 28 that he received two lists with 120 names each of prospective jurors for the trial of his client Ravi Badhwar, who is charged in the highway death of trucker David Virgoe.

He said he was at a disadvantage because he has no way of knowing what notations like "ok," which is beside many names, mean. "I don't know if it means they are good for the Crown."

In the face of media reports, on May 26, John Ayre, Ontario's deputy assistant attorney general, sent out a memo to all Crowns reminding them that if a criminal record check is requested, it should only be for indictable, in other words, the most serious offences. "In no case should any other information be requested."

As late as May 8, Michael Minns, deputy Crown attorney in Simcoe County, had sent out to local OPP detachments and Midland police the two jury panel lists for the Badhwar trial, which was to start June 1.

Minns asked for police to advise of any who had criminal records. "It would also be helpful if comments could be made concerning any disreputable persons we would not want as a juror," he wrote.

But under Section 20 of the Juries Act, the Sheriff must keep juries lists "under lock and key" until 10 days before the start of the trial. In this case, however, the lists were in the hands of the Crown at least 24 days before the trial was to begin.

"How can the Crown have access to the list on May 8th or the day before?" Worsoff asked. "The sheriff's office has acted unlawfully."

Worsoff said the checks were an invasion of privacy.

"None of this would have happened if they would have worked within the confines of the law and respected the fair trial process for Mr. Badhwar."

He said that the prospective jurors have wasted their time by coming to court, "all because of Crown misconduct."