"A man imprisoned for nearly three decades
on wrongful sexual assault convictions didn’t know another suspect had
lived across the street, a British Columbia court has heard. Ivan
Henry’s lawyer said in closing arguments that the Crown failed to
disclose crucial details about another suspect that would have helped
his defence in a 1983 trial. “The evidence at the trial was that Henry
lived in the heart of where the assaults were taking place. Well, here
was someone else who not only lived in the heart, but had actually lived
there for years,” Marilyn Sandford told B.C. Supreme Court on Tuesday. She
said Henry moved to the neighbourhood in 1982, years after the sexual
assaults had been occurring. The other suspect had been surveilled by
police in connection with the crimes, had a history of sexual predation
and more closely resembled a composite photo, she added.........Sandford
argued that if more evidence had been disclosed to Henry in the trial
in 1983 — when he defended himself — the outcome would have been
different. If Henry had known about the
other suspect, he could have shed new light on testimony from one
woman, who saw her assailant on a bus shortly after an attack, Sandford
said. The woman said the man was holding an envelope with Henry’s address on it, court heard. But Henry’s address was similar to the other suspect’s address, Sandford pointed out. She
said while police moved away from the other suspect as they pursued
their “tainted” investigation of Henry, the man was not eliminated
through forensic evidence and was not shown to victims in a police
lineup. The Crown also failed to tell
Henry that biological material, including semen and pubic hair, had not
been examined, or disclose information gathered from a tracking device
on his car, Sandford told court. The
province is expected to deliver its closing arguments at a later time.
It has argued that even if the Crown had disclosed more evidence to
Henry, he would not have known what to do with it. Sandford
said that on the contrary, her client showed considerable motivation
and diligence for a poorly educated and unrepresented accused. He
produced lengthy written alibis, brought court applications and wrote
disclosure letters, she said. Henry
didn’t need “Perry Mason courtroom skills” in order to receive the
disclosure, Sandford said, referring to an old TV series about a master
criminal defence lawyer. She said the Crown’s argument was, “If the accused is ill-equipped enough, we somehow avoid liability for disclosing. “That simply cannot be the law.”
Tuesday, December 8, 2015
Bulletin: Ivan Henry. British Columbia; Court hears that Crown didn’t give Ivan Henry information on another suspect; "Ivan Henry’s lawyer said in closing arguments that the Crown failed to disclose crucial details about another suspect that would have helped his defence in a 1983 trial. “The evidence at the trial was that Henry lived in the heart of where the assaults were taking place. Well, here was someone else who not only lived in the heart, but had actually lived there for years,” Marilyn Sandford told B.C. Supreme Court on Tuesday." ........."Henry didn’t need “Perry Mason courtroom skills” in order to receive the disclosure, Sandford said, referring to an old TV series about a master criminal defence lawyer. She said the Crown’s argument was, “If the accused is ill-equipped enough, we somehow avoid liability for disclosing. “That simply cannot be the law.” Canadian Press;
