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: 2009 BCCA 23 Ward v. British Columbia

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.

In British Columbia, police still investigate themselves in cases where there may be suggestions of wrongdoing. Despite the obvious conflicts of interest inherent in such a system, our politicians have done nothing to address the problem. As a result, public confidence in the criminal justice system is waning and costs are rising.

Take the Robert Dziekanski case, for example. After the confused Polish immigrant arrived at Vancouver International Airport on October 13, 2007, he was confronted by four uniformed RCMP officers. He died moments later. In the initial stages of the RCMP investigation of the fatality, spokesperson Pierre Lemaitre misled the public about what had happened. When a citizen delivered a videotape of the incident to the RCMP investigators, they initially refused to return a copy to him. After he launched a lawsuit for its return, it finally became public:

The videotape clearly contradicted the RCMP’s description of the incident and, to any objective observer, showed that one or more of the officers had used excessive force when they shocked Mr. Dziekanski with 50,000 volts of TASER electricity before attempting to reason with him.

The RCMP investigation of itself, and the ensuing deliberations by Crown Counsel as to whether any charges were warranted, lasted nearly a year. Predictably, no charges were laid.

To attempt to quell the public uproar over the shocking incident, a public inquiry was launched. One can only guess how much the inquiry will cost BC taxpayers, but it surely must be in the millions of dollars. At the second phase of the inquiry, which commenced Monday, no fewer than 23 lawyers were in attendance, most being paid from the public purse. If we conservatively estimate that their collective meters are running at $6,000 per hour, assume that the inquiry will last six months, add an equal number of hours for out of court preparation, well, you can do the math…

All this cost might have been avoided, and the criminal justice system and police would appear much more respectable, if the fatal incident had been investigated by an independent body with the authority to lay charges.

Sometimes a single citizen can show more common sense in a letter to the editor than can a roomful of lawyers. Here’s a copy of a letter from the January 19, 2009 edition of Vancouver Province newspaper:

“Having viewed the video of the police Tasering of Robert Dziekanski numerous times on TV and on YouTube, as well as having followed the media reporting of the incident continuously, I must say that there are eight items that stand clear in my mind:

1. Mr. Dziekanski had endured a very long flight to arrive at Vancouver airport only to suffer a much longer delay (in terms of stress, not time) in the customs area. No one spoke his language and apparently he barely understood English, yet when communicated to by hand signals and gestures he complied immediately and without fail.

2. When Mr. Dziekanski became understandably irritated, airport security, rather than trying to assist him, merely stood by and watched. In fact, they moved toward him then retreated, and more than once.

3. When the four heavily armed (pistols, batons, flak vests and gloves) police officers arrived and crowded into the atrium, Mr. Dziekanski immediately and naturally assumed a defensive posture.

4. On no less than two occasions after their arrival, the police indicated via hand gestures where Mr. Dziekanski should locate himself — to which he immediately complied.

5. At no point did the officers give or attempt to give hand signals indicating Mr. Dziekanski should reveal what he was holding in his hand or hands.

6. As the officers began to encircle Mr. Dziekanski, it became apparent that he was fearful of the officers.

7. Most important, when the officers first arrived, who briefed them about the situation?

8. Most important of all: Please tell me again, why was it necessary to Taser Mr. Dziekanski?

Stephen Jacura, Burnaby”

“I have a dream”; August 28, 1963

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: 2009 BCCA 12 R. v. Henry

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