BACKGROUND: (From a previous post: Columnist Dan Lett, in The Winnipeg Free Press): "Advocates for Anderson and Woodhouse had worked for nearly eight years to get to this point. Their convictions were only overturned by federal Justice Minister David Lametti on June 22. And the decision by Court of King’s Bench Chief Justice Glenn Joyal to schedule a hearing less than a month later on whether to hold a new trial was nothing short of miraculous. But there they were, standing in a court of law, a half-century after Winnipeg police arrested Anderson, Woodhouse and two other Indigenous men for the 1973 murder of Ting Fong Chan, a chef at a downtown restaurant. The charges were read out, the Crown prosecutor in attendance declined to call evidence and Joyal punctuated the day by acquitting both men and declaring them completely innocent. Joyal’s decision was both just and justified. The case against Anderson and Woodhouse was solely based on clearly false and coerced confessions elicited by police detectives with a reputation for using violence and intimidation. The accused spoke very little English and yet had somehow provided Winnipeg police with fulsome, grammatically correct admissions of their guilt. The acquittals and declaration of innocence were very nearly a perfect ending to this story. Except for one glaring fact: this should have happened 15 years earlier."
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/8652969675222087635
----------------------------------------------------------------
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: Delivered by Chief Justice Glenn Joyal in The Court of King's Bench for Manitoba, on July 18, 2023.
—————————————————————-
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: " Mr. Woodhouse, when you spoke from the witness stand a moment ago, you said,“I believe in justice. It just needs to be practised.” Those words resonate with me and they should resonate with any fair-minded Canadian or citizen of the world. I will try to do what I can in the next few minutes to say certain things to you that, hopefully, on behalf of the justice system, will start to make you whole. But one thing I do not think I need do for either one of you gentlemen, is to provide you dignity. You already have dignity. The words you spoke and the courage you have shown have demonstrated over these past five decades that you have dignity to spare. Nothing I need to say today will add to that. Your courage and your resilience make it clear to everybody that you both have dignity in quantities that the rest of us can only hope to have. When the charge was read earlier today for the most recent and hopefully last time ever, both you, Mr. Anderson and you, Mr. Woodhouse, said in the clearest of ways and the strongest and defiant of words, “not guilty”. Those words, in fact, have been repeated with the same consistency and the same clarity by both of you over the past five decades."
———————————————————————————————————
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "You also deserve, as I said earlier, an apology. An apology that I am too happy as a Chief Justice of the Court of King’s Bench to render to you on behalf of an institution and a system that failed you. As Ms. Jules (Representing the Crown HL) quite candidly said, this was a case dominated by features that no prosecution should ever experience. There was disclosure issues, no doubt, because of what had been a very outdated process for providing information to the defence. The prosecution took place pre-Charter where certain protections are now available but were not available then. The now entrenched Charter protections, hopefully in most cases, will assist in avoiding and preventing what happened to you. It occurred before the modernized confession rule which, hopefully now, again, avoids the travesty that occurred in this case with the forced and false confessions. And what also happened in this case was what we all must battle against individual and systemic racial discrimination. "
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: THE COURT: I am addressing myself now to you, Mr. Woodhouse, and you, Mr. Anderson. I was thinking of taking some time and reflecting in writing what might be the precise words and paragraphs that might possibly communicate to you how sorry on behalf of the administration of justice, I am, and that we, who participated in that system, are for what happened to you.
A Chief Justice in any court in this country, indeed, any court anywhere, if they have an ounce of fairness and justice in them, would admit to being ill equipped to find adequate words that could possibly speak to what you must have endured.
So I am going to speak to you now in very plain language that I think can, and hopefully will communicate, a very heartfelt message to both of you.
Understand that I speak publically on a regular basis as a Chief Justice about the very positive features that a Canadian court and the judiciary in Canada possesses.
I speak on behalf of the justice system – sometime specifically the criminal justice system -- and I regularly speak about how well we compare with other countries. But the grim and sad reality is that it is not a perfect system. And, regrettably, when it fails, it can fail horribly. This is such a case.
Mr. Woodhouse, when you spoke from the witness stand a moment ago, you said,“I believe in justice. It just needs to be practised.” Those words resonate with me and they should resonate with any fair-minded Canadian or citizen of the world
I will try to do what I can in the next few minutes to say certain things to you that, hopefully, on behalf of the justice system, will start to make you whole. But one thing I do not think I need do for either one of you gentlemen, is to provide you dignity. You already have dignity.
The words you spoke and the courage you have shown have demonstrated over these past five decades that you have dignity to spare. Nothing I need to say today will add to that. Your courage and your resilience make it clear to everybody that you both have dignity in quantities that the rest of us can only hope to have.
When the charge was read earlier today for the most recent and hopefully last time ever, both you, Mr. Anderson and you, Mr. Woodhouse, said in the clearest of ways and the strongest and defiant of words, “not guilty”. Those words, in fact, have been repeated with the same consistency and the same clarity by both of you over the past five decades.
I have noted the position taken by Ms. Jules on behalf of the Crown, a fair andvery responsible position at today’s hearing. It was a position to not present evidence, and moreover, that position was accompanied by the Crown’s own — and this is important to remember -- the Crown’s own clear and unequivocal and unconditional compelling submission.
The situation before me represents not just a miscarriage of justice, it also represents a case where the two men convicted, you, Mr. Woodhouse, and you, Mr. Anderson, were in fact innocent, innocent of the crime alleged.
There should be nothing in that context in what I say today, or what anybody says today, that should be discerned as equivocal, half-hearted, or unconditional. You deserve to hear two things very clearly. You are innocent. And you deserve the acquittals that I am happy to enter.
You also deserve, as I said earlier, an apology. An apology that I am too happy as a Chief Justice of the Court of King’s Bench to render to you on behalf of an institution and a system that failed you.
As Ms. Jules quite candidly said, this was a case dominated by features that no prosecution should ever experience. There was disclosure issues, no doubt, because of what had been a very outdated process for providing information to the defence. The prosecution took place pre-Charter where certain protections are now available but were not available then. The now entrenched Charter protections, hopefully in most cases, will assist in avoiding and preventing what happened to you.
It occurred before the modernized confession rule which, hopefully now, again, avoids the travesty that occurred in this case with the forced and false confessions. And what also happened in this case was what we all must battle against individual and systemic racial discrimination.
That is why we all continue to try to work toward a system where safeguards do not permit or tolerate a case like this one where that individual and systemic racial discrimination dominated in the investigation and prosecution stages and ultimately the verdict itself.
You both, as all counsel have indicated, displayed remarkable courage and your stories are stories of courage and resilience.
I agree wholeheartedly with both Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Lockyer that in our system, we cannot permit this type of miscarriage of justice, this type of conviction of two innocent men, to become the price of doing business.
We cannot permit these types of wrongful convictions to occur in a normalized or inevitable way without the horror and the outrage that they deserve.
I think Mr. Lockyer’s point is a good one. While no one wants to be glib and self-satisfied or self-congratulatory when we do encounter an injustice like this, it is, nonetheless, reasonable to say that we must try to learn from it.
Part of that involves trying to put in place new safeguards, new guardrails, and new protections that will avoid the next Mr. Woodhouse or the next Mr. Anderson, or the next Mr. Ostrowski, and the next Mr. Sophonow.
As it relates to your resilience Mr. Woodhouse and Mr. Anderson, you are both heroes in every sense of the word.
I know it is difficult today for the Chan family, who still do not have closure of their own, to sit here while closure, hopefully and properly comes to two other individuals, Mr. Woodhouse and Mr. Anderson, who needless to say, also deserve it.
But your own presence here, I say this to the Chan family, I think dignifies what we are trying to restore for Mr. Woodhouse and Mr. Anderson.And on behalf of the Court, I appreciate your presence, and I think I understand how difficult it must be for you, but again, you make this proceeding today even more dignified than it otherwise could have been.
3 So, Mr. Woodhouse and Mr. Anderson, you have maintained your innocence. You have done so for almost 50 years. You are innocent and you deserve the acquittals
5 that I am now happy to enter.
Clearly, nothing I can say Mr. Anderson or Mr. Woodhouse, will restore all of those things that were taken from you. I hope some of the words I have tried to communicate to you in as a heartfelt and clear way as possible, will at least allow you to walk out of here hearing words from a system that hopefully can allow you to have some renewed faith in a system that, while imperfect, continues to try to do better while recognizing the mistakes that unfortunately may still on occasion occur.
So I want to thank all counsel, Ms. Jules, Mr. Lockyer, Mr. Kennedy, for the workyou have done and hopefully we can use this morning’s proceeding as we have in the past as some type of reference point for improving a good system, but one that remains imperfect and human, and deserves all of the assistance and all of the safeguards that we can humanly provide to that system.
Thank you, Mr. Woodhouse and Mr. Anderson. I wish you the best of luck in the future. Okay?
Yes.
The entire decision can be read at:
"Preview attachment 2023 07 18 Reasons for Judgment.pdf2023 07 18 Reasons for Judgment.pdf130 KB
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. 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.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/47049136857587929
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices.
Lawyer Radha Natarajan;
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
------------------------------------------------------------------
YET ANOTHER FINAL WORD:
David Hammond, one of Broadwater’s attorneys who sought his exoneration, told the Syracuse Post-Standard, “Sprinkle some junk science onto a faulty identification, and it’s the perfect recipe for a wrongful conviction.”
https://deadline.com/2021/11/alice-sebold-lucky-rape-conviction-overturned-anthony-broadwater-1234880143/
-----------------------------------------------
