"The 1983 sexual-assault trial that put a wrongfully convicted man behind bars
for nearly three decades is the most egregious example in Canadian history of
the Crown withholding evidence from an accused, a court has heard. Lawyer Marilyn Sandford described as “breathtaking” the scope of the material
kept from Ivan Henry, which included witness statements, warrants, medical
reports, surveillance information and police notes. “Mr. Henry knew at the time of his trial that something was very wrong,” Ms.
Sandford told B.C. Supreme Court on Monday. “He knew that he was entitled to a fair trial, that the justice system
promised him that. … But Mr. Henry could not have been more mistaken.” Mr. Henry is suing the province for compensation after he was acquitted by
the B.C. Court of Appeal on 10 counts of sexual assault involving eight
women. The federal government and the City of Vancouver have settled with Mr. Henry
for undisclosed amounts, leaving B.C. as the only remaining defendant. Ms. Sandford said the trial would likely have gone very differently had the
Crown released more than just 66 disclosure documents to Mr. Henry.She told the court about multiple instances when Mr. Henry had reached out to
the Crown requesting additional material, including statements from
complainants, the arresting officers and police notes. He received no response,
she said. “There’s a whole history here of an accused who’s unrepresented, writing
letters to the Crown — very sensible straightforward requests — and those
letters simply going unanswered,” said Ms. Sandford. “It shows an attitude of non-disclosure being the norm for the trial
prosecutors.” Ms. Sandford referred to an argument the Crown made earlier in this trial. In
that argument, the Crown said Mr. Henry’s decision to represent himself meant
disclosing more information would have made no difference in the outcome of the
case. “This attitude about disclosure – the notion that, ‘Well, this is a guy who
no one’s going to believe, and anyways he wouldn’t know what to do with the
disclosure’ – that attitude gives us insight into what happened in 1983,” she
said. Forensic evidence collected from various crime scenes that failed to link to
Mr. Henry was also not disclosed, said Mr. Sandford. Had Mr. Henry known that
biological material recovered by police had not been examined, including semen
and pubic hair, he would have been able to offer his blood to the Crown to test
for a match or analyze the samples himself, she said. She said he was not informed the evidence existed......... Ms. Sandford and co-counsel John Laxton are expected to conclude their
closing arguments before the end of the week, after which the province will have
the opportunity to make its final case."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/lawyer-blasts-crown-for-withholding-evidence-in-ivan-henry-trial/article27631945/