"On
the eve of the close of Ivan Henry’s trial for compensation for his
wrongful conviction, Rape Relief is threatening to throw the case into
procedural chaos. In a move Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson
called “disappointing,” B.C. Justice Minister Suzanne Anton backed the
Vancouver organization’s right to be heard. “I was hoping for some assistance from the attorney general,” Hinkson scowled at government lawyer Jonathan Penner. Vancouver
Rape Relief and Women’s Shelter wants to apply for the appointment of
an amicus curiae — “a friend of the court” — to put Henry’s “factual
innocence” on trial. His lawyers were outraged that could result
in more witnesses, in particular, victims of the 1980s sex crimes of
which Henry was acquitted. Renowned lawyer Joseph Arvay had
difficulty containing his anger, calling one of the country’s oldest
women’s rights groups “a mere busybody.” He said it was trying to get involved in litigation that was none of its business while foisting the cost on the public. Hearing
the organization would be “a complete waste of time” and appointing an
amicus will not only delay the trial but also be highly prejudicial to
Henry, Arvay added. “This is an unprecedented application,” he
fumed. “I know of no case, no authority, no practice in which a stranger
to the litigation would have standing to ask the court to appoint an
amicus.” Both parties remaining in this suit are fully
represented, he said, no one is asking for help and an amicus does not
traditionally call witnesses or lead evidence. The veteran counsel was almost apoplectic. “Calm down, Mr. Arvay,” the judge said. “There
has never been a case that I know of where the court has entertained an
application for standing by a stranger to the litigation,” Arvay
repeated. The B.C. Court of Appeal in 2010 said there was no
evidence against Henry and acquitted him of 10 sexual offences against
eight women. Henry had been declared a dangerous offender in 1983 and spent 27 years behind bars. The
City of Vancouver, which was responsible for police and forensic
analysts, and the federal government, representing national officials
responsible for reviewing his convictions, have already settled with the
69-year-old. Only Victoria, which closed its case last week, continues to defend prosecutors. Though the evidentiary stage of the trial is over, Rape Relief wants it reopened. Arvay
ridiculed the suggestion the organization was there to defend the
interests of victims in the 1980s attacks when its lawyer said she
didn’t represent any of the women. For Rape Relief, Gwendoline Allison said the 42-year-old organization wanted to raise the question of “factual innocence.” She
acknowledged it was an “unusual” move, but a route to the witness box
was needed for a handful of witnesses, including two women scheduled to
testify who were dropped because the city withdrew claims Henry
committed the attacks in its settlement two weeks ago..........The judge said he will decide Tuesday whether Rape Relief can argue for an amicus.
Tuesday, December 1, 2015
Bulletin: Ivan Henry: British Columbia: Extraordinary development: Vancouver Sun reports: "Rape Relief wants say in Ivan Henry compensation trial; Attorney general supports group’s right to be heard in Ivan Henry wrongful conviction ordeal."..."On the eve of the close of Ivan Henry’s trial for compensation for his wrongful conviction, Rape Relief is threatening to throw the case into procedural chaos. In a move Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson called “disappointing,” B.C. Justice Minister Suzanne Anton backed the Vancouver organization’s right to be heard. “I was hoping for some assistance from the attorney general,” Hinkson scowled at government lawyer Jonathan Penner. Vancouver Rape Relief and Women’s Shelter wants to apply for the appointment of an amicus curiae — “a friend of the court” — to put Henry’s “factual innocence” on trial. His lawyers were outraged that could result in more witnesses, in particular, victims of the 1980s sex crimes of which Henry was acquitted...."Renowned lawyer Joseph Arvay had difficulty containing his anger, calling one of the country’s oldest women’s rights groups “a mere busybody.” He said it was trying to get involved in litigation that was none of its business while foisting the cost on the public. Hearing the organization would be “a complete waste of time” and appointing an amicus will not only delay the trial but also be highly prejudicial to Henry, Arvay added. “This is an unprecedented application,” he fumed. “I know of no case, no authority, no practice in which a stranger to the litigation would have standing to ask the court to appoint an amicus.” Both parties remaining in this suit are fully represented, he said, no one is asking for help and an amicus does not traditionally call witnesses or lead evidence. The veteran counsel was almost apoplectic. “Calm down, Mr. Arvay,” the judge said.“ Reporter Ian Mulgrew; (Must Read. HL);
