| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
|
| Appeals in "pie case" dismissed |
|
| Ivan Henry's appeal re-opened |
|
| Imprisoned more than 26 years, Ivan Henry may get appeal |
|
The Court of Appeal issued reasons for judgment today which upheld the decision of the trial judge in the civil case arising from my arrest, strip search, wrongful detention and seizure of my car after Vancouver police somehow mistook me for someone who was conspiring to throw a pie at Prime Minister Chretien at a ceremony in Vancouver's Chinatown in August of 2002.
Read the decision here: upload
A few comments:
I am extremely grateful for the work of my lawyers, especially Brian Samuels, who took the lead for the six day trial and two day appeal and did terrific work on my behalf. I hope that this case encourages others to stand up for their rights.
The learned trial judge said I was "mistaken" about the events leading to my arrest by three Vancouver police officers. I certainly wasn't, and this finding drives home the difficulty a citizen faces when it's his word against the word of, in this case, three police officers.
The Court of Appeal decision leaves the impression that I initiated the appeal. I didn't. After I won at trial, the Province filed an appeal against the Court's decision to award me $5,000 for the unlawful strip search that breached my Charter rights. After receiving notice that the Province was taking that step, I challenged aspects of the trial decision that I disagreed with.
My formal complaint lodged with the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner was dismissed as "unsubstantiated". How could this be, if the courts found my rights were violated? Simply put, because the police investigated the police.
Finally, the City of Vancouver, which is responsible for the actions of its police, had at least two opportunities to avoid this lengthy and expensive litigation by simply providing an apology. I made it clear I would accept an apology a short time after the incident and again shortly before trial. The offer to drop the case for an apology was rejected both times.
A panel of the Court of Appeal (Saunders, Levine and Lowry JJA) today granted Ivan Henry's application to re-open his appeal, more than twenty-five years after he was convicted of eight counts of sexual assault and sentenced to an indefinite term of imprisonment. Calling it an "extraordinary" case, Madam Justice Saunders, for the Court, concluded that "in this highly unusual situation it is in the interests of justice that the appeal be re-opened."
The decision is now available here: upload
Ivan Henry, 62
Ivan Henry was arrested on July 29, 1982 and charged with a series of sexual assaults. He has been in jail ever since. Tomorrow he will learn whether he will have an opportunity that has eluded him for over a quarter century; the opportunity to appeal his conviction on the merits.
Mr. Henry defended himself at his trial before a judge and jury. No physical evidence (fingerprints, footprints, hair, bodily fluid, etc.) was tendered at trial to link him to any of the crimes, although police investigators had obtained some. He was convicted on the testimony of the complainants, several of whom were shown a lineup in which Mr. Henry was the only man being forcibly restrained by three uniformed police officers. He was convicted of ten counts involving eight women and, on November 23, 1983, declared a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indefinite term of imprisonment. He filed an appeal immediately, but it was dismissed for want of prosecution on February 24, 1984.
Still representing himself, Mr. Henry filed more than 50 unsuccessful applications in an attempt to overturn his convictions. His attempts to obtain legal aid funding were rebuffed.
In December, 2006 the Criminal Justice Branch of the Ministry of Attorney General announced that senior lawyer Leonard Doust, Q.C. was appointed "to determine whether there has been a potential miscarriage of justice" in the case. We were retained to represent Mr. Henry's interests and, following the delivery of Mr. Doust's report in 2008, legal aid funding was made available.
Ivan Henry, now 62, depicted in a recent photo
