Wrongly jailed for 27 years

[maryjane48]

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled a B.C. man can use the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to pursue a lawsuit after being wrongly imprisoned for 27 years for sexual assaults he did not commit.

The landmark ruling clarifies the circumstances under which criminal prosecutors may be sued if they fail to disclose evidence to accused persons.

In 1983, Ivan Henry was convicted of three counts of rape, two counts of attempted rape and five counts of indecent assault in attacks on eight women in Vancouver and declared a dangerous offender.

In 2010, the B.C. Court of Appeal overturned Henry's convictions, citing a lack of full disclosure of evidence by prosecutors. It heard that evidence, which came to light during a 2002 police investigation which involved another offender who was implicated in 29 cases and lived near Henry.

In 2001, Henry sued the provincial and federal attorneys general, the City of Vancouver and three members of its police department for withholding evidence that could have helped his defence.

The case centres on a fine point of charter law, but one which has major ramifications for how criminal cases proceed every day in courtrooms across Canada.

Henry wanted to proceed with his lawsuit without having to prove that the Crown's failure to disclose involved malice.

The attorneys general wanted the higher standard of malice to be upheld to protect prosecutors from a flood of lawsuits.

Justice Michael Moldaver said malice did not need to be proven, but he laid out criteria to govern how the legal test ought to be applied.

"This represents a high threshold for a successful charter damages claim, albeit one that is lower than malice," he wrote.

http://www.castanet.net/news/Canada/138 ... r-27-years



maybe this will make crown counsels think twice before they invent convictions against innocent people, i wonder how much he will win against the idiot crown counsel?

[jimmy4321]

I'm not against capital punishment because it lowers ourselves to murderers Yada Yada Yada.
I'm against it because the courts get it wrong at times.I don't have a number, but between Canada and US there has been many wrongfully imprisoned who've served 20yrs+. That we know.

On another topic about the police breaking that man's neck.There was a comment to the fact that he hoped public pressure didn't play a factor in charging these officers.
I'd like to believe it didn't but if you can believe that, is it not possible the odd average Joe wouldn't fall victim to the same public pressures.

[maryjane48]

I'd like to believe it didn't but if you can believe that, is it not possible the odd average Joe wouldn't fall victim to the same public pressures.

yes i agree with that hundred percent , but most of these wrongful conviction cases involve , the police and or the crown counsel withholding , or tampering with evidence . if you want to get a conviction to appease the masses at least make it circumstantial , but do not willfully alter evidence or statements . i think these crowns and cops that engage in this should face jail themselves

[Donald G]

The court decision was based on whether full disclosure had been made. Not whether or not he had actually committed the offences for which he was convicted.

The elimination of other POSSIBLE suspects by the police has long been a factor used by defence council to get their clients off, even though it has nothing to do with actual guilt or innocence.

Andy Rose was granted three retrials on the Sherps and Gorickie (sp) murders and was convicted three times but was acquitted after his fourth trial due to an appeal based on similar grounds.

Legal theory vs reality.

[FreeRights]

Its all just an absolute technical show. People do get off based on nothing but a technical flaw, and it's also true that some people get convicted who shouldn't.

In this particular case, nobody is saying that this person is not guilty. What they are saying is that there wasn't full disclosure of the evidence. That should not happen.

Granted, we're 30 years down the road from when it didn't happen, and police and Crown council is a lot more procedural based, so cases like this have been far more infrequent and when they have occurred, they are resolved quickly.

[Donald G]

It is nothing for the police to come up with over a hundred "possible suspects" during some murder and serious sexual assault cases. It is completely unrealistic to expect the police, through crown counsel, to identify all possible suspects and explain why they were eliminated. The "someone else could have done it" defence has nothing to do with dealing with the evidence tending to prove that the person charged actually did the offence.

Especially in this case where, if memory serves me right, one of the victims later found was a niece of the accused who knew him well. In multiple sexual assault investigations it is very common to find that members or relatives of the family have been victimized as well as strangers.

Another example of legal theory over reality.

[Hassel99]

Talk about being robbed, i hope this man gets some solid compensation.

[Donald G]

To Hassel99 ...

I have to assume that you have no knowledge of the long string of horrendous offences for which Mr Henry was sent to prison that warranted him being determined to be a dangerous offender.

For which of his many offences do you insist that he be compensated ??

IMO, the Crown may have neglected to dot an i but rest assured Mr. Henry is a Dangerous Offender based on the evidence given at his trial, DO hearing and parole applications. He has made the victims relive their painful ordeals over and over and over again.

If it was possible for "the men in black" to be found guilty of bringing the system of justice into disrepute this decision would reflect exactly that. But, since all decisions are made by "the men in black" that will never happen.

[jimmy4321]

27 yrs wrongly jailed is 27yrs. I don't give a crap about the history, deal with what's in front of you.
Hope he rakes it in.

[the truth]

27 yrs wrongly jailed is 27yrs. I don't give a crap about the history, deal with what's in front of you.
Hope he rakes it in.

wrongly jailed ???? the guy is a rapist-i guess your ok with that ??????? rape women and then get paid for it, only in canada-SAD-

[FreeRights]

wrongly jailed ???? the guy is a rapist-i guess your ok with that ??????? rape women and then get paid for it, only in canada-SAD-

To be absolutely fair, the onus of proof was on the Crown to prove it, and while it's still very likely that he is guilty, its nobody's fault by the Crown for failing to disclose all of the evidence.

[jimmy4321]

Cold hard CASH is the biggest motivator for people to get it right.
Get it right and this conversation doesn't take place.

[Donald G]

Unfortunately such theoretical points of law are nothing more than value judgements. As such the ONLY right answer is the PERSONAL OPINION of the highest court judge hearing the case or appeal.

Answering the question of what evidence has to and does not have to be disclosed by Crown is like saying "when is it too dark to see" ?? I have sat for a week while a defence lawyer, went through a multi file cabinet major murder investigation that the police had amassed. As usual 75% of the material had absolutely nothing to do with ANY suspects being eliminated or the accused being charged. IMO another asinine decision by ONE judge as to what constituted full disclosure that was later rescinded by a higher court and later still reconfirmed by a higher court still. The men in black do not even agree among themselves as to what full disclosure actually means regarding any given court case.

It used to mean full disclosure of any and all information that Crown intends to present during the court trial. Now it has been expanded to any information uncovered by the police during the investigation whether or not it relates to the guilt or innocence of the accused or not. Billable hours and a complete waste of court time.

The police an Crown have to take a best guess and hope that they are able to "guess right" as to what the judge hearing the trial will decide ... and the appeal ... and the second trial ... and the second appeal ... etc.

[Donald G]

To jimmy4321 ...

If you mean cold hard cash in the form of billable hours I would agree. Unfortunately frivolous lawsuits aimed at extracting money from the taxpayers through the injustice system is getting to be more and more of a problem in our system. Anyone with deep pockets is worth suing anytime over anything. The cost to the lawyer is minimal and the potential payoff huge.

[Donald G]

To lakevixen ...

Since you have not corrected your absolutely false statement that Mr Heny was "wrongly imprisoned for 27 years for sexual assaults he did not commit". I will again bring it to your attention that you owe it to the victims to apologize for your hugely insulting and completely false statement.

There was absolutely nothing during the trial or the appeal to suggest that Mr Henry did not do all of the offences with which he was charged. His appeal was on the TECHNICAL grounds that all of the evidence that IN THE PERSONAL OPINION OF THE JUDGE HEARING THE APPEAL, NOT ALL OF THE NON USED (AT TRIAL) INFORMATION AVAILABLE 27 YEARS AGO THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED WAS NOT DISCLOSED.

It had absolutely nothing to do with whether Mr Henry did the series of violent rapes and sexual assaults or not. One of the most telling witnesses was a relative of his who knew him well so there was never any doubt as to whether or not he was the right person or not.

Theory vs reality