Excerpts from interview with ex-Homolka lawyer

CTV.ca News Staff

After virtually holding his silence in recent years, the lawyer behind the plea bargain that will soon set Karla Homolka free is standing by his deal.

In 1993, Homolka's former defence attorney George Walker crafted arguably the most controversial deal in Canadian legal history that has since been called "the deal with the devil."

In his first sit-down interview with the national media in more than eight years, Walker tells CTV's national correspondent Lisa LaFlamme about the details of the deal that will set Homolka free after 12 years in prison.

Although Walker dropped his notorious client after arranging the plea deal, public interest in his deal-making has been refuelled in the days leading up to Homolka's release.

Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant has already vowed to seek a court order to restrict her movements upon her release. He will seek a recognizance order under Sec. 810 of the Criminal Code in a Quebec court.

It's a move that Walker says sets a dangerous legal precedent.

Following are excerpts of Walker's interview with Lisa LaFlamme.

LaFlamme: Tell me about the whole 810 question that could see Homolka restricted. By the letter of the deal, is it even legitimate or feasible?

Walker: You've got to keep in mind that the section was not passed when we did this plea resolution, it's obviously subsequent legislation. Now the interesting thing is that 810.1 has been ruled constitutional -- 810.2, there hasn't been a ruling on that yet.

I think that 810.2, although the wording is very similar to 810.1, you have to have the consent of the attorney general to bring the application.

And I was hoping that the attorney general in Quebec would say 'No, why are you coming into this province and trying to basically institute a criminal proceeding against Homolka?'.

LaFlamme: Remind us, because that's the issue right now - it's all about the deal that you negotiated?

Walker: Yeah, but the troubling thing is that people who are discussing the deal don't know all the facts. There is a lot of bad information floating around out there.

LaFlamme: The public perception is that she (Karla) was essentially exonerated for the death of her sister.

Walker: The principle that is involved, the sentencing principle, is from another case. That principle allows the court to have before it, in assessing a fit and proper sentence, other criminal activity for which the offender has not been charged.

The sentencing justice can use that in accessing a fit and proper sentence. It's always an aggravating factor obviously. So that aggravating factor was taken into consideration. The justice had the facts before him relating to the offences.

LaFlamme: Because she (Karla) revealed them?

Walker: That's right.

LaFlamme: So what's it like for you now? It must be enormously frustrating?

Walker: It's totally frustrating to see how the provincial parliament is acting.

LaFlamme: What are they trying to say?

Walker: What they have going for them is that most people have a gut reaction to Ms. Homolka. They hate her, they don't like her, deal with the devil - you can use all the metaphors that you want.

What hasn't been put out there is how the plea resolution was arrived at and the reviews that the government had taken of the plea resolution and the findings of that review.

In that review, in Justice (Patrick) Galligan's report, there is a summary of what took place in the courtroom. So the transcript is there for anyone to read, and when I say the transcript, that's when we entered the pleas of guilty to the two counts of manslaughter and the sentence before Justice (Francis) Kovacs - it's all there.

LaFlamme: Were you surprised that they were moving forward?

Walker: Yes, I was. I was surprised at the quality of the arguments being put forward. The arguments being put forward, or the rationalizations being put forward by present Attorney General Bryant. If it's accurate, some of the reporting as to what he has said about this particular case I find offensive.

LaFlamme: Why?

Walker: If he had read the report, the results of Justice Galligan's findings in the inquiry, he would see that Ms. Homolka continued to cooperate with the authorities from the time the pleas were entered up until the finding of the tapes. But it's as if they don't want to read what the findings are.

LaFlamme: I think that this is really important, that you disclosed all of this information?

Walker: October 6, 1993 is when I received correspondence from Karla, I sent it off to the attorney general… she's remembering more and more, they had that letter in 1993.

LaFlamme: But the deal was done.

Walker: The deal was done, but it was part of the plea resolution that as she became aware of anything more, she had to disclose it.

LaFlamme: But would she ever have to pay for it?

Walker: Not if she was being truthful. Not if they felt she was being truthful.

LaFlamme: Even if it was a crime she was admitting to.

Walker: That's right, if they felt she was being truthful…The (public) don't know that back in October, 1993 we sent this correspondence to the Crown.

LaFlamme: So here you are, almost vilified.

Walker: There you go -- tapes weren't found until October of 1994, we told them there were videotapes, she assisted them in looking for the videotapes.

If she knew there were videotapes, and if she is telling the police that there are videotapes and if she is assisting the authorities in trying to locate the videotapes -- certainly if she was this cunning person, she would know that when they found the videotapes unless they were edited, she would be on them.

So the only point I want to make is that she was cooperating well after her date in court.

I think we both (Walker and Crown attorney Murray Segal) walked away thinking we had a fair deal and given her cooperation subsequent, given the difficulties that the Crown had in presenting its case, given the background, I would think what we both thought was a fair deal then, we would still think is a fair deal today…In spite of the tapes, (the Crown) needed her.

LaFlamme: Why did they need her so badly in spite of the tapes?

Walker: You would have to talk to the prosecution.

LaFlamme: I know you consider the attorney general's efforts to seek court order to restrict Homolka to be a dangerous legal precedent. But is she, in a sense, not an isolated case? Do you really buy…

Walker: What I do buy is that bad facts situations make bad law. This is the worst factual scenario. And it's going to make bad law.

The only point I want to make is, forget it's Karla Homolka. Once the government starts bringing these applications it's a slippery slope. And they're going to be more and more applications.

This is no longer about monitoring, this is punishment, they are not even clever enough to disguise their arguments in terms of monitoring. The Ontario legislature - and I've said this before -- I could probably count on one hand the number of members in that legislature that have read Justice Galligan's inquiry findings.

Probably chop a couple of fingers off, and still, nobody has read that. The attorney general, he's not read it. If he has read it, then he would not have made some of the statements he has made.

LaFlamme: How much has this affected you personally?

Walker: Strangely enough, it's affected my wife more than me. Let me explain that -- the repercussions, she suffered worse than I did. The public, in general, the public have been kind to me. I have no complaints.

I tried to deal with the matter with as much dignity as I could, keeping in mind this is a small community. And the media came in, and the media left but we were still here.

LaFlamme: Did she ask you not to represent her?

Walker: There came a point in time when, yes, my wife did say that perhaps someone else should represent her here on in, which was fair enough.

LaFlamme: At what point did it get too much for her?

Walker: Well, I think the trial was obviously the worst for her… and immediately thereafter, I mean she put up with some nonsense.

This has taken on a life of its own. Every year, I sort of hoped it would go away. I'm not naïve, but why, why after this period of time is it still…I mean, people's emotions are so raw. It's obvious in Niagara, St. Catharines, Karla is vilified, and it seems to be moving, in circles that are ever-broadening

LaFlamme: When you perhaps realized her active participation, did things change for you mentally? Is that a fair question to ask you?

Walker: No, because, there you go now, Lisa, you're falling into that trap again. I was told of her involvement, we told the Crown of her involvement, or maybe possible involvement in a further offence, Jane Doe.

LaFlamme: But what about the degree of her active involvement?

Walker: No one could watch those videotapes and not be moved if that's your question. It still haunts, it still haunts me.

Obviously the thing that will never leave me are the videotapes, the images on there, they're so striking, they're so real. Some nights it's as if I could just reach out and there they are, touch them, it's a bizarre thing I know.

LaFlamme: Perhaps there are people, including you maybe, who thought she should have had two first degree murder charges.

Walker: I never thought that.

LaFlamme: No? You never thought that?

Walker: Never thought that. I negotiated for what I thought was a fitting proper plea resolution in all of the circumstances.

LaFlamme: Is it that you don't think that because it's not your job to think that? It's always your job to get the best deal for your client?

Walker: That's correct, that's correct. But you don't always have to like your client.

LaFlamme: Did you like her?

Walker: You don't always have to like your client.