Recent documents that have been disclosed show that the Canadian correctional service prevented Paul Bernardo from asking his lawyer to make a public statement to the media as the controversy over the transfer of the notorious killer to a medium-security prison escalated.

Bernardo was transferred to the La Macaza Institute, a medium-security prison located about 190 kilometers northwest of Montreal, in late May from the highly secure Millhaven Institution near Kingston, Ontario.

He is serving a life sentence for the kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder of 15-year-old Kristen French and 14-year-old Leslie Mahaffy in the early 1990s near St. Catharines, Ontario.

Bernardo was also convicted of manslaughter in December 1990 in the death of 15-year-old Tammy Homolka, the younger sister of his then-wife Carla Homolka. She pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to 12 years in prison for her role in the crimes against French and Mahaffy. She was released in 2005. Bernardo, who has been classified as a dangerous offender, has admitted to sexually assaulting 14 other women.

His transfer last spring sparked a political storm among the ruling Liberals, with Conservatives and families of two of Bernardo's victims calling for his return to maximum security.

Ultimately, a review by the correctional service found that while it could have acted more sensitively when it came to notifying the victims, the decision it made to reclassify Bernardo was sound.

The email was released through a freedom of information request and was part of a wave of messages between prison system staff and the Office of the Queen's Privy Council, a part of the federal bureaucracy that supports the operations of the Prime Minister's Office.

As the Liberals scrambled to deal with the fallout from transferring one of Canada's most reviled killers to a medium-security prison, there was concern that Bernardo would speak publicly.

A correctional service worker wrote to a colleague in the Privy Council in an email dated June 6: "We were told that Bernardo spoke with his lawyer about speaking publicly to the media on his behalf."

"However, we have since intervened and talked to him about victim considerations, and we were told he would advise his lawyer."

The email added that "there is a slight possibility that the lawyer may have already spoken to the media," and Bernardo's lawyer does not appear to have made any such statement.

A spokesperson for the correctional service said it does not prohibit offenders from speaking to the media but outlined a general process it follows to consider interview requests, which includes ensuring that they do not jeopardize the offender's rehabilitation plan or glorify their crimes.

Kevin Antonucci wrote, without addressing the specific intervention in Bernardo's case, according to the email: "(We do not have) any records of any interview requests made for this offender during this timeframe."

Tom Engel, head of the Canadian Prison Law Association, said the role of the correctional service is not to "muzzle" inmates.

He said in an interview on Tuesday, "I am puzzled when I understand where (the Canadian Correctional Service) thinks this is part of its role, which is to protect victims from statements the inmate may make to the media."

"I don't know where they think they get the authority to do that. For me, this goes beyond their role as detention and rehabilitation officials and that sort of thing for inmates."

He said it is understandable that prison officials intervene in safety matters related to inmates, for example, if they find an inmate trying to arrange for the delivery of drugs. But in this case, "I can't think of any authority or jurisdiction they would have to do that or any responsibility they would have to do so."

The correctional service's review of Bernardo's transfer concluded that he had been eligible for transfer for years, but it did not happen until he had successfully integrated with more inmates, after spending most of his sentence in solitary confinement.

However, federal Conservatives continued to pressure for the formation of a parliamentary committee to conduct more investigation into this decision.

Tim Danson, the lawyer representing the French and Mahaffy families, said in an email that there is an issue with the "lack of transparency" overall regarding the transfer process.

He added, "Bernardo of course has the right to free expression to speak publicly, just as families and the public have the right to access all information related to public safety."

Danson said the families have asked the Supreme Court of Canada to hear a request for access to the correctional service and Parole Board of Canada records related to Bernardo's application for parole, saying it was denied release.

He said the two agencies along with the federal government "have supported Bernardo at the expense of the families," "so selective picking of victim concerns is not helpful."

He added, "Bernardo of course has the right to free expression to speak publicly, just as families and the public have the right to access all information related to public safety."

Danson said the families have asked the Supreme Court of Canada to hear a request for access to the correctional service and Parole Board of Canada records related to Bernardo's application for parole, saying it was denied release.

He said the two agencies along with the federal government "have supported Bernardo at the expense of the families."

"So selective picking of victim concerns is not helpful."
Danson added that Bernardo's next parole hearing is scheduled for February.

Katherine Latimer, head of the John Howard Society of Canada, said it is fair for people in prison to have a chance to explain what is happening to them while in custody.

She and Engel wonder how prison officials knew that Bernardo discussed making such a statement with his lawyer, given that communications between a lawyer and client are protected by lawyer-client privilege.

The correctional service has not yet responded to questions regarding that.

Latimer said prisoners should have access to the media "like any other citizen," while acknowledging that there may be limits on what they can say if it pertains to the safety of an institution or another inmate.

"Whether it is effective or not, I don't know. But I think he probably had a legitimate interest in speaking at that time."