The Decibel - Why full parole was granted to a multiple murderer

Episode Date: March 20, 2024

The man who murdered the parents of a former NHL goalie was recently granted full parole. In 2022, a ruling by the Supreme Court struck down the punishment of life without parole for multiple murders. This case has raised questions about what rules and parameters are in place for convicted killers and the potential threat they pose to society.The Globe and Mail’s justice writer Sean Fine explains the details of the case, the mechanism of the parole system and what it can mean for future criminal cases.Questions? Comments? Ideas? Email us at [e-mail]

Before we start, a warning that today's show includes descriptions of violence. Earlier this month, a man convicted of multiple murders was released on full parole in Ontario. That means he'll serve out the rest of his sentence outside of prison, under supervision. But because of the violent nature and severity of his crimes, some people are questioning how just Canada's parole system is. Sean Fine is The Globe's justice reporter. He's on the show to explain why Canada's system works the way it does, what this one case shows us about parole,

and what it means for future cases that deal with multiple murders. I'm Mainika Raman-Wilms, and this is The Decibel from The Globe and Mail. Sean, thank you so much for being back on the podcast. Thank you for having me back. I think we should really start by understanding the crimes committed against the Edwards family in 1991. Can you take us back to then what happened? Well, Menika, these were crimes of the utmost brutality. It started with an act of violence against a woman.

What you had was a relationship at first between George Harding Lovey and Michelle Edwards. At some point, Michelle perceived that Lovey was too possessive. She broke it off. He began to stalk her. And one day, he was charged with sexually assaulting Michelle Edwards at knife point and gun point. He was able to get bail. And while he was on bail, this was in Hamilton, Ontario,

one night he set up under the front porch of her house with a knife and a gun, 4 o'clock in the morning with a blanket. He's come ready to stay. She wakes up. She goes out to work at 7 in the morning, and she sees him. She races across the street. He's firing at her from his gun. She goes into her parents' house across the street, calls 911. Lovie chased her across the street and then shot Michelle's mother, Donna Edwards,

through the door, two bullets, killing her. Got inside the house, shot the father, Arnold Edwards. Somehow, even though he'd been shot, jumped on Lovie's back. I mean, it was a scene like out of a horror movie, as cliche as that sounds, it really seems that way. And Michelle got hold of the gun, but it had a couple of safeties on it. It was a very old-fashioned gun, a lever action repeating rifle.

She couldn't figure it out. And George Lovey then stabs her father five times, and with each thrust of the knife, he's shouting, do you like me now? Do you like me now? This is recorded on her 911 call. That's how we know about it. That was evidence used at his trial where he was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and one of attempted murder.

So it was as bloody a scene as can be imagined. Yeah. And so as you said, Sean, he was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder, one count of attempted murder. The earlier charges of sexual assault and forcible confinement were stayed. What was his sentence? So he received the mandatory sentence of life in prison with first chance at day parole after 22 years and first chance at full parole after 25 years. So tell me about when he was first granted day parole then. So that was in 2019. So he had been in prison for 28 years when he first got day parole. So they did hold him past the point that he was first eligible.

And then earlier this month, he was up for full parole. But something happened a couple of weeks before that hearing, Sean. Can you tell me about that? Yes. He was given a pass to drive to see his stepmother in Brantford, Ontario. Brantford is right next door to Hamilton where the murders were committed and where some of the family members of the Edwards still live today. He had an approved route to take. And because of the risks of this trip,

he was given an ankle monitor to wear. He was perceived by the National Monitoring Center to be off his approved route. And so the center buzzed him on the ankle monitor. He did not respond. It then phoned him on his cell phone. He did not respond. Then the RCMP got involved, put out a warrant for his arrest, and the authorities phoned members of the Edwards family to tell them to activate their safety plans. Essentially, they went into hiding.

Wow. So basically, they didn't know where he was. They were worried for their safety. That's right. He was considered at that point on the lam because they didn't know where he was. They were worried for their safety. That's right. He was considered at that point on the lam because they didn't know where he was. And then what happened? At some point, he arrived in Brantford. He didn't stop. And eventually, he did make contact with the authorities and they took off the alerts. But even with everything that happened there, Sean, a couple of weeks before the hearing, he was granted full parole then. Yes. So they had an incident two weeks earlier and they could have said, you know what, there's a lot of lack of clarity around this, but we are still concerned. You didn't answer the phone. You didn't answer the buzzing of your bracelet. But instead they accepted his view that it was a miscommunication, that his parole officer agreed that it was a miscommunication. He said,

and this is according to evidence that he gave in his parole hearing, which I attended remotely, he said that he didn't feel the buzzing of his monitor, he didn't hear the cell phone ringing, and he said he didn't have the cell phone of his parole officer. I think what happened there was that the board gave him the benefit of the doubt. But some people, including the family, did actually take issue with the granting of a full parole here. Can you explain what was that issue, Sean?

I think we need to have a little bit more background here. In previous parole reports, the board said that your understanding of your criminality is contingent. That was the word they used, contingent on understanding and taking responsibility for the initial sexual assault. I mean, this whole crime, the murders of the parents, grew out of an act of violence against a woman. And that was an act that George Levy never took responsibility for, has never acknowledged, and is in denial about. And the board has expressed concern over a number of years about that denial. We see this in previous reports, and we see that he was denied day parole for a number of years.

In their reasons for granting him full parole, they said that they'd basically given up. They threw up their hands and they said, we don't see you taking responsibility at this stage of your life. It's just not going to happen. You're not going to get any more insight. They were critical of his lack of insight.

But then they just gave up on that and they said, we don't think that your lack of self-understanding in this regard adds to your risk. So that was their stated reason. I should also note that their decision at the hearing came after 10 minutes of deliberation. 10 minutes. And so a point that I really want to make is that justice needs to be seen to be done. Their decision is their decision, but it's important to note that, you know, the public doesn't have a lot of access

to these parole board hearings. And partly that's the failing of the media. And I include myself in that we don't get out to a lot of parole board hearings. I have done some before, but, but not many. And so, so I was there. So I'm going to tell you what I saw. I saw 50 to 60 minutes of questioning of George Lovey. The victims themselves, there were 11 members of the Edwards family, including Don Edwards, the former NHL goaltender. So the 11 members of the family spoke for an hour and a half. They're entitled to make victim impact statements, and they did. And they spoke about how their lives were shattered by this double killing, including grandchildren who were alive then, who were five, six, eight years old at the time,

the absolutely devastating effects on them. I mean, you really had to hear this to grasp the devastation. And the board touched on a couple of things, but really not that many and not in great detail. So you had a short period of questioning, 50 to 60 minutes, basically sticking largely to the surface, accepting Lovie's answers as he gave them, and then 10 minutes of deliberation. This is, of course, one situation we're talking about, Sean, but I guess why is this situation important to talk about? What kind of maybe insight does it give us into how these systems work? Well, first of all, the stakes are so high in this case because you have a double murderer

that the case itself, I mean, just on its own is shocking and needs to be dealt with and needs to be seen to be dealt with in a very fair manner for all concerned. But this is not the only such case and we are going to be seeing many, many more cases like this come before the parole board. And what this case indicates is how the parole board treats multiple killings. Each case turns on its facts, I don't doubt that. But this one started with the most brutal murders arising from violence against women. And we have many, many cases like that that are going to come back. We'll be right back. I think we should talk a little bit about parole more broadly here now. So we've talked about that one case, but let's just back up a little bit, Sean. How is parole and in the parole system,

how is it supposed to work in Canada? Well, parole is a very important safety measure for Canadians because you don't want to let someone out before just, you know, at the end of their sentence and, oh, goodbye, see you later. You want to have some supervision in place. So the parole system was created a long time ago, basically dates back to the beginnings of Canada, to give people some supervision and that way protect society. And what is the big picture? What is the point of parole? Like, what are we trying to achieve here?

Partly it's to encourage good behavior in jail. I mean, without any hope of getting out early, people would probably not behave while they're inside. And it's to encourage them to work on themselves, take programs, obtaining skills for outside. Those skills could be, you know, trades or they could be high school or university education. It could be skills in dealing with their own emotional issues. And then, as I say, to give people a way out early under supervision. Those given a life sentence, it's a little bit different because the system does not have to let them out. So they only are supposed to let them out if they're not an undue

risk. That is the legal phrase, not an undue risk. But basically, so it sounds like kind of what you're saying is, you know, the way the system is is supposed to mitigate risk to society in general, right? So when people are let out of jail to be in a situation where they're not posing a risk to others. That's right. we approach parole has actually changed over time, because there was a significant change in 2011, when former PM Stephen Harper introduced legislation that allowed for consecutive 25-year blocks of parole ineligibility. So basically, if you're convicted of two first degree murders, then the time you could be up for parole could be much longer, actually, than 25 years. But then, Sean, the Supreme Court actually overruled that in 2022. So what exactly happened there? The way Canada treats murder is one of the big differentiators with the United States.

So we don't have the death penalty. And until 2011, we did not have life without parole. Stephen Harper brought in effectively life without parole when he said that judges can stack up these periods of parole in eligibility. So we had Alexandre Bissonnette. He killed six Muslim worshippers at a mosque in Quebec City in 2017. The judge was entitled to say no parole for 150 years. The judge, mind you, said, no, I'm going to say no parole for 40 years. And that case went to the Supreme Court. And then in a nine to nothing ruling,

the Supreme Court said, this law cannot stand. Canadian values are always to hold out the possibility of rehabilitation for individuals and to leave it to the parole board to make the decision. And what I found so interesting was that here you have a Supreme Court of nine people appointed by two different governments, a conservative government, a liberal government, very different views on law and order and the Charter of Rights.

But in this case, all nine of them said, no, this is against how we do our system. It goes against human dignity. We do not, and we don't do what they do in the United States where people get a sentence of 150 years, you know, beyond the human lifespan, that that degrades the system itself. So they just would not do that. The result of this ruling is that all those people sentenced to these long periods of parole ineligibility since 2011 had their sentences taken back and now are eligible for full parole at 25 years. So Alexandre Bussinet himself, his parole clock started ticking in 2017. So by 2039, he will be eligible for day parole and that doesn't mean he'll get it. But part of the importance of the levy release on full parole is the way they reason it suggests that other multiple killers will also get a real shot at release. And that could include

Alexandre Bissonnette himself. So just to be clear now then, does that mean now that anyone could get full parole in Canada, like even people who do commit mass murder? Well, I mean, I think some of the worst killers, serial killers, the Pictons, the Bernardos, I don't think there's any chance that they will get released on parole. These are very notorious serial killers. Right. But I think with some others,

we will see that they will get a chance. And the way the parole board proceeded in this case was very incrementally. Lovey got an escorted pass, an unescorted pass, you know, day pass, day parole where he was in a halfway house, then two days a week in his own apartment, then three, four, five. And once you open that door a crack, you're opening it to the possibility of full release on conditions. And I should say that the life sentence means that the parole authorities follow you for life and you can be jailed at any

time, whether it's for violating your conditions or for committing another crime. Yeah. It was interesting. So something in the Supreme Court ruling, they were saying that they were in a sense trusting the parole board to make the decision on rehabilitation. Is that, I guess, the results that we're seeing actually play out on that level, that they're focused on rehabilitation? Right. So what the Supreme Court said was that when Canadians read what the court has done in striking down this law, they can take solace in the fact that the parole board will look for compelling evidence of rehabilitation. That was their quote, compelling evidence of rehabilitation. And I have to say that in looking through the parole board reports on George Lovey,

they never use that phrase. And moreover, in substance, they didn't really look for it. What they're looking for is to manage risk. The legal phrase is that they can release someone who's not an undue risk to public safety. So they're looking to manage risk. And then you say, well, what does that mean in practice? So George Lovey, there are actuarial reports that are done, psychological reports on risk. And so the last one that was done was in 2019, and they said that one in three offenders who achieve his score will go on to commit an indictable offense in the next three years. So two out of three were safe, but one out of three will commit an indictable offense. That they view as a fairly low risk. This is how the jail system looks at it. Now, I contacted a law professor who is an expert in violence against women issues who said, well, she doesn't like those odds.

The parole board still says that George Levy is a high risk in terms of intimate partner violence. And in fact, the board put a condition on him that if he has a relationship of any kind, even a friendship with a woman, he has to report it to the parole authorities. I want to ask you about the political side of this as well, Sean, because this is talked about in politics. Conservative leader Pierre Polyev has mentioned this specifically. Last month, he tweeted that, quote, mass murderers should face consecutive sentences so they only come out of jail in a box, end quote. The context here was this was in relation to Robert Pickton being eligible for parole. Sean, could we see a future federal government change access to parole for multiple murderers? Well, not in the way Mr. Preliev described in that tweet because the Supreme Court has blocked that.

That's what they struck down. So just to be clear, the consecutive sentences, that's what the Supreme Court struck down. So that's not possible then? Not whole life sentences. The Supreme Court did open the door to giving sentences with parole terms longer than 25 years. I mean, they did say that there was nothing magical about the 25-year period. Government could extend that term, that parole term, to 30 or 35 years, potentially. I mean, it might be challenged, but the court did open the door to it. Just very lastly here, Sean, you've covered the justice system for a while. What does all of this tell us about how the parole system is working in Canada? Well, it's a system that is open to giving parole for some of the worst killers.

So it's a system that holds out hope of parole if you change yourself. And that is something I wanted to talk about because that is the, I guess, overarching question here. Did George Lovey change himself? And in a previous story on parole, I quoted a man who'd been in federal prison off and on for 20 years who said, you can take all the programs you want, but in the end, it's up to you to change yourself. And in this case, the board praised, in the Lovie case, the board praised Lovie for having completed 10 programs. But in their previous reports, they said you took the programs, but only because you were required to. I think Canadians, by and large, want a system that is focused on rehabilitating the prisoners we have,

getting them educated if they need that, getting them a trade if that would benefit them, and having a system that encourages that kind of focus on the positive and getting them changed, knowing that that is not going to happen for everybody, and allowing that hope. When it comes to the worst of the worst, there may be different considerations that apply because one has to keep in mind that public safety is paramount.

I mean, that is in the law. And so here what we want to see is that the process is working. And this case of George Lovey, I think, raises questions for the worst of the worst, questions that may not always apply at lower levels as to whether the process, both in terms of the reasoning and the effort given, is commensurate with the stakes involved. John, thank you so much for taking the time to be here today. Thank you for having me once again, Manika. Before we go today, we want to let you know that The Globe has launched The Globe Leadership Institute. These are online classes that offer insights from educators, business experts, and Globe and Mail journalists like Robin Doolittle and James Bradshaw. You can learn more at theglobeleadershipinstitute.com.

That's it for today. I'm Maina Karaman-Wilms. Our intern is Manjot Singh. Our producers are Madeline White, Cheryl Sutherland, and Rachel Levy-McLaughlin. David Crosby edits the show. Adrian Chung is our senior producer, and Angela Pachenza is our executive editor.

Thanks so much for listening, and I'll talk to you tomorrow.