Ivan Henry: British Columbia; Momentous decision. (Supreme Court of Canada); Served 27 years in prison for a series of sexual assaults and not told police suspected one of his neighbours. Nor was he told about 30 witness statements with inconsistencies, or sperm found at crime scenes that might, if tested, have exonerated him, or the suspect down the street; Court makes it easier for wrongly convicted people to sue prosecutors by weakening the malice standard. Justice reporter Sean Fine. Globe and mail.

STORY: "Top court sides with B.C. man, broadens freedom to sue prosectors,"   by Justice Reporter Sean Fine published by the Globe and Mail on May 1, 2015.

GIST:  "The Supreme Court of Canada has made it easier for wrongly convicted people to sue prosecutors for violating their rights in ruling on the case of a man who served 27 years in prison for a series of sexual assaults and was not told police suspected one of his neighbours. Since 1989, prosecutors in Canada have had immunity from lawsuits, except when a person could prove they acted maliciously. But confronted with the wrongful conviction of Ivan Henry of Vancouver, who was not told about 30 witness statements with inconsistencies, or sperm found at crime scenes that might, if tested, have exonerated him, or the suspect down the street, the Supreme Court made it easier to sue prosecutors who do not disclose information that could help the defence. ........Joseph Arvay, a lawyer who represented Mr. Henry, now in his late 60s, said his client is pleased with the ruling. “It gives him everything he needs to succeed at trial,” he said referring to the lawsuit. The federal attorney-general and British Columbia attorney-general had opposed weakening of the malice standard, and both said on Friday they are reviewing the ruling. Mr. Henry was jailed indefinitely as a dangerous offender in a series of sexual assaults in which a man had pulled a pillow case over victims’ heads, making identification difficult. His case is notorious among wrongful convictions because he was shown in a photo lineup to an eyewitness while in a police headlock. He represented himself at his trial. When similar sexual assaults continued after he was incarcerated, prosecutors took another look at his claims of innocence. The suspect who had lived down the street was eventually convicted of sexually assaulting three women, and sentenced to five years in jail."

The entire story can be found at:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-man-can-sue-over-wrongful-sex-assault-conviction-top-court-rules/article24207519/

The Supreme Court of Canada decision can be found at: "Per Abella, Moldaver, Wagner and Gascon JJ.: Where, as here, a claimant seeks Charter  damages based on allegations that the Crown’s failure to disclose violated his or her Charter  rights, proof of malice is not required. Instead, a cause of action will lie where the Crown, in breach of its constitutional obligations, causes harm to the accused by intentionally withholding information when it knows, or would reasonably be expected to know, that the information is material to the defence and that the failure to disclose will likely impinge on the accused’s ability to make full answer and defence. This represents a high threshold for a successful Charter  damages claim, albeit one that is lower than malice. Only by keeping liability within strict bounds can a reasonable balance be struck between remedying serious rights violations and maintaining the efficient operation of our public prosecution system."

 http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15329/index.do?r=AAAAAQAMIml2YW4gaGVucnkiAAAAAAE

 Wikipedia report: Attacks similar to Henry's alleged crimes continued after he was incarcerated. In 2002, the Vancouver police re-opened 25 unsolved sexual assaults that took place between 1983 and 1988 in the same areas of Vancouver and the assaults for which Henry was convicted. Another man, who had been a suspect in police investigation of Henry, was linked to three of these later offences through DNA evidence, and later pleaded guilty to these crimes. On the basis of the similarities between the assaults, Vancouver prosecutors alerted the Attorney General and a special prosecutor was appointed to investigate Henry's conviction and the potential miscarriage of justice. In 2008, the special prosecutor recommended that the Crown not oppose efforts by Henry to reopen his appeal.^[2] In 2010, the British Columbia Court of Appeal quashed Henry's conviction and entered acquittals on all charges. Justice Low held that "the verdict on each count was not one that a properly instructed jury acting judicially could reasonably have rendered."^[3] It is believed that no one in Canadian history has spent more time in jail before being subsequently acquitted.^[4] Henry has brought a civil suit against the BC government, Vancouver police, and others for compensation. The issue of whether Henry is entitled to civil compensation for the breach of his Charter rights has worked its way through appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada.^[5] On June 9, 2014, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin stated the constitutional question in this case as follows: "Does s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms authorize a court of competent jurisdiction to award damages against the Crown for prosecutorial misconduct absent proof of malice?"^[6]"

 PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 

  Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.

I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located  near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.

The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:

http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith

Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
 
http://smithforensic.blogspot.ca/2013/12/the-charles-smith-award-presented-to_28.html
 
I look forward to hearing from readers at:

hlevy15@gmail.com.
 
Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;