March 4-9 -- The Thirty-Day Review: A Minimalist Approach
On March 4, Mr. Weaver received another Sharing of Information document.
This advised him that his thirty-day segregation review would be on March
9, 1999. The document stated that the original Segregation Placement Form,
the five-day review, and a psychological assessment would be considered
at the hearing. No reference was made to the preliminary results of the
RCMP's investigation, the results of the analysis performed on Mr. Weaver's
letter to Warden Gallagher, or the negative results of the interception
of his telephone calls.
Mr. Weaver's thirty-day segregation review was chaired by Unit Manager
Callahan. Mr. Callahan denied Mr. Weaver's request to have me present
as legal counsel at the hearing, on the grounds that a lawyer's presence
was not necessary considering the Board's duties and functions. Mr. Callahan
informed Mr. Weaver that the Board was recommending he remain segregated
while his case was reviewed for a transfer to a maximum security institution.
Mr. Weaver protested that the Board had come to a decision without giving
him an opportunity to present his case. Mr. Callahan said the Board's
primary function was to review any concerns Mr. Weaver had with regard
to his segregated status, including such things as meals, showers, exercise,
and legal calls. Mr. Weaver asked the Board whether it was taking the
new information into account: the RCMP's conclusions that his boots did
not match any footprints at the scene of the crime, the RCMP's concerns
about the reliability of Mr. Caziere's identification of his assailants,
and the RCMP's overall conclusion that Mr. Weaver was not involved in
the assault. He also asked whether the Board was taking into account the
results of the handwriting analysis and the interception of his telephone
calls. Mr. Weaver was told that all of this would be dealt with in the
documents being prepared for his Involuntary Transfer and he would have
a chance to present a rebuttal in due course. Although Mr. Weaver pointed
out that all the evidence was consistent with his innocence rather than
his guilt, the Board reiterated that he would be maintained in segregation
pending a decision on his transfer to Kent maximum security.
Mr. Callahan's minimalist statement of the Segregation Board's functions
-- to review prisoners' concerns about such things as meals, showers,
exercise, and legal calls -- failed to include the Board's primary function,
which is to review whether there are reasonable grounds for continued
segregation of a prisoner and reasonable alternatives to such segregation.
Mr. Callahan began the hearing by advising Mr. Weaver that he would be
maintained in segregation while his case was reviewed for a transfer to
higher security. The original legal justification for Mr. Weaver's segregation
was to prevent interference with an ongoing investigation. Segregation
for the purposes of reviewing a prisoner's security classification is
not an authorized basis for segregation under s. 31(3) of the CCRA.
As he had done at his five-day review, Gary Weaver protested his innocence
of any wrongdoing in the assault of Mr. Caziere, and he sought to bring
to the Board's attention the preliminary results of the RCMP investigation
and the IPSOs' investigation, which corroborated his innocence. The Segregation
Review Board made no efforts to respond to Mr. Weaver's arguments.
Page 1 of 1