Allan Woodhouse; Brian Anderson: Manitoba: A dark moment in Canadian Justice: The City of Winnipeg and Canada's federal government are both denying liability in lawsuits filed by these First Nation's men who were wrongly convicted of a slaying five decades ago, The Winnipeg Free Press (Reporter EriK Pandora) reports…"Allan Woodhouse (left) and Brian Anderson were exonerated by Court of King’s Bench Chief Justice Glenn Joyal, almost 50 years to the day after being charged with the 1973 killing of Ting Fong Chan. The federal justice minister at the time, David Lametti, had ordered a new trial one month earlier. The judge said the Winnipeg police investigation, provincial Crown prosecution and verdict were dominated by individual and systemic racism."

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

----------------------------------------------------------------

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Anderson and Woodhouse claim Winnipeg police officers and George Dangerfield, the provincial Crown attorney who prosecuted the case, colluded to give false evidence during the trial. Four murder cases prosecuted by Dangerfield were later struck down as wrongful convictions."

----------------------------------------------------

STORY; 'City, Ottawa deny liability in lawsuits filed by wrongfully convicted First Nations men in 1973 slaying,' by Reporter Erik Pindera, published by the Winnipeg Free Press, on May 31, 2024. (Erik Pindera is a reporter for the Free Press, mostly focusing on crime and justice.)

GIST: "The City of Winnipeg and the federal attorney general are asking a Manitoba court to turf lawsuits filed by two First Nations men who were wrongfully convicted of a slaying five decades ago.

The two defendants deny legal liability for the miscarriages of justice.

Allan Woodhouse, 68, and Brian Anderson, 69, members of Pinaymootang First Nation in the Interlake, were formally acquitted in Court of King’s Bench last July on murder charges in the fatal 1973 stabbing of Ting Fong Chan, after Crown prosecutors presented no evidence.

Allan Woodhouse (left) and Brian Anderson were exonerated by Court of King’s Bench Chief Justice Glenn Joyal, almost 50 years to the day after being charged with the 1973 killing of Ting Fong Chan.

The federal justice minister at the time, David Lametti, had ordered a new trial one month earlier.

The judge said the Winnipeg police investigation, provincial Crown prosecution and verdict were dominated by individual and systemic racism.

Woodhouse and Anderson, who have the same lawyers, including James Lockyer of Innocence Canada, filed separate lawsuits in Court of King’s Bench against Ottawa, the province and the city in April.

In separate statements of defence filed last month, the city and the federal attorney general argue the claims against them should be dismissed, denying that they can be held legally responsible.

The city’s court filings argue the allegations of wrongdoing against Winnipeg police officers were from a time when the legislation governing police did not allow a municipality to be held liable in a civil court for an officer’s wrongful or rights-infringing acts.

The current provincial Police Services Act, enacted in 2009, does allow a municipality to be held liable.

“The City of Winnipeg pleads and relies on such defences and limitations as may have operated at law to the benefit and protection of the police officers at the relevant time,” read the May 9 city statements of defence.

The city also argues the arrest and questioning of Woodhouse and Anderson were reasonable steps in the context of the investigation.

Anderson and Woodhouse claim Winnipeg police officers and George Dangerfield, the provincial Crown attorney who prosecuted the case, colluded to give false evidence during the trial.

Four murder cases prosecuted by Dangerfield were later struck down as wrongful convictions.

The city denied any allegations of a conspiracy and misfeasance of public office in its court papers, among other denials.

It also says the men could take legal action only on any alleged violations of their rights under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which it denies and says would fall on the province, if violations occurred after the charter was entrenched in 1982.

Broadly, the City of Winnipeg says the legal actions against it are barred by the applicable legal limitations from the time of the investigation and should be dismissed with costs.

The city also filed cross-claims against the Manitoba government, seeking indemnity, or an exemption from liability for damages, for any cash the court awards to Woodhouse and Anderson.

“To the extent that the plaintiff has suffered actionable losses… such losses arise wholly and directly, or in the alternative primarily, from the conduct of the prosecution of the plaintiff,” read the city’s claims.

The federal attorney general’s court filings say the Canadian government played no role in the city police investigation of Chan’s slaying or in the provincial prosecutions of the two wrongfully convicted men.

“There was not any action or inaction, breach of duty or breach of a Charter right of the plaintiff, by a servant of Canada for which Canada is vicariously liable,” reads the Department of Justice’s May 23 statements of defence.

Anderson and Woodhouse alleged the federal government failed to ensure they were treated fairly as First Nations men in the justice system and to protect their charter rights.

The federal government says none of its agents breached the men’s charter rights, nor did it have any duty to ensure their rights weren’t breached by others.

The attorney general says it “did not breach any statutory, common law or constitutional duties” to the men and therefore does not owe them damages.

The federal government asked for the court to dismiss the claims against it."

The entire story can be read at:

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/2024/05/31/city-ottawa-deny-liability-in-lawsuits-filed-by-wrongfully-convicted-first-nations-men-in-1973-slaying

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/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985

---------------------------------------------------------------

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-12348801

———————---------------------