|
Justice
Minister Mackintosh gets involved | Premier gets involved | More layers of
the criminal prosecutorial cover-up are revealed | We thank Disclosure for providing a link.
Driskell pages: one | two | three | four | five | 2005
| Terry Arnold | New:
Blogging RCMP Informants
2005: Winnipeg Police in the news again | Monique Turenne | Jason Dix
malicious cop promoted
Inquiry
iunderway, summer 2006
Limited in scope to limit damage to the Crown | Dan
Lett backgrounder in the Winnipeg Free Press, July, 2006
|
<
< < Previous
James Driskell
(3)
A promise
made, but not kept:
Mackintosh told Driskell
in '95 that he would help him
Dan Lett, December 1, 2003
IT was the spring of 1995 and
Gord Mackintosh, the earnest justice critic for the opposition
NDP, had come to Stony Mountain penitentiary north of Winnipeg
to meet some of the life prisoners.
Mackintosh came at the invitation
of Rene Durocher, an ex-con who counselled life prisoners before
and after their release to help them reintegrate into society.
Mackintosh and Durocher had worked together on many projects,
such as Neighborhood Watch and restorative justice conferences.
After meeting and talking with
many of the inmates, Durocher pulled Mackintosh aside to tell
him about one inmate in particular who needed his help.
"I had introduced Gord
to Jim a bit earlier," said Durocher. "I told him Jim
is definitely wrongly convicted. I asked him if he ever got into
power, please do something to help Jim."
Mackintosh then sought out
Driskell. "He asked me some questions about my case and
then he told me point-blank, 'I can't do anything right now because
I'm only a justice critic,' " Driskell recalls now. "
'But if I get into power, then I can do something to help you.'
"
The irony of this tale is that
Mackintosh has not only been unable to live up to his earlier
promise, but he and his department appear to be looking for every
excuse to frustrate Driskell's efforts to prove his innocence.
Last week, Driskell became
only the second federal prisoner to win bail on the strength
of new evidence showing he may be innocent. Justice John Scurfield
of Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench concluded, on the basis of
that new evidence, that it would be a travesty to keep Driskell
in jail while the federal Justice Department reviews his case.
That new evidence included
secret payments and immunity from prosecution provided to Crown
witnesses, and DNA tests that have excluded three hairs used
to convict Driskell.
No mystery witness
There are two important points
to make about the position that Mackintosh and Manitoba Justice
have taken in the Driskell case.
First, the evidence that guided
Scurfield in his decision has been available to the Crown all
along.
Driskell's lawyers have not
dredged up a mystery witness, or found a new piece of evidence,
or even solicited a confession from another suspect. Driskell's
team has worked primarily with police and Crown files that were
kept from Driskell and his supporters for more than a decade.
Much of that new evidence was
also kept from the minister. In 1993, then-justice minister Jim
McCrae asked for a review of the Driskell case. The department
asked the prosecutor, George Dangerfield, for a "short commentary"
on allegations that Driskell was innocent.
Dangerfield rewarded the minister's
confidence by failing to mention in that short commentary that
he had been provided with evidence from Saskatchewan that Winnipeg
police offered a key witness an unauthorized immunity deal for
an arson in Swift Current. Two other high-ranking Justice department
officials who were aware of the same evidence, Bruce Miller and
Stu Whitley, similarly found no opportunity to alert McCrae.
Mackintosh has clearly shown
some concern. Not only did he agree to pay for DNA tests, Manitoba
Justice has also continued to disclose all its files, including
some explosive evidence that helped win Driskell bail last week.
And he has ordered an independent inquiry into allegations that
senior members of Manitoba Justice formed a conspiracy of silence
to hide evidence.
But at the same time, Manitoba
Justice has denied the importance of the very evidence it helped
produce. Justice Scurfield noted the DNA results were evidence
enough to probably have won Driskell a new trial, and if Mackintosh
had accepted an invitation from Driskell's lawyers last February
to put that evidence before the Manitoba Court of Appeal, Driskell
could have been freed months earlier.
Final insult
As an aside, the final insult
to the injury came this fall when Legal Aid Manitoba decided
to renege on a verbal agreement with Driskell's principal attorney,
James Lockyer of Toronto, and cut him off from any government
funding.
Mackintosh has argued consistently
it would be inappropriate for him to intervene directly in Driskell's
case because there must be a separation between the political
and prosecution levels of his department. In many respects he
is right. But there are instances, when the administration of
justice has been called into disrepute, when the attorney general
has an obligation to become involved. Mackintosh could have,
as he did in the case of Thomas Sophonow, become directly involved
and accepted the invitation to get a court opinion on the new
evidence.
When you listen to the long
list of things Mackintosh says he can't do, it appears being
promoted from justice critic to justice minister isn't all it's
cracked up to be.
dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca
- Driskell free at last
- Bail victory only
half the battle, he declares
By Dan Lett and Leah Janzen,
November 29th, 2003
JAMES DRISKELL walked out of
a Winnipeg courtroom yesterday, free for the first time in more
than 13 years and more committed than ever to prove his innocence
once and for all.
After a whirlwind week that
saw a wave of new evidence questioning his guilt, a Winnipeg
court ordered that Driskell be released on $50,000 bail while
the federal Justice Department reviews claims that he is innocent
of the 1991 murder of his friend, Perry Dean Harder.
Driskell said he was overwhelmed
by the decision -- and the media attention -- as he walked out
of the Law Courts Building arm-in-arm with his mother, Florence,
and into a wall of television cameras, microphones and tape recorders.
"The battle is only half
done," Driskell said as the media throng enveloped him.
"We still have a lot more work we have to do. And (the bail)
is not going to take my focus away from anything."
Only once before in Canada
has a convicted murderer been granted bail because of new evidence
pointing to a wrongful conviction. In July, Romeo Phillion was
released on bail after three decades behind bars while the federal
justice minister investigates whether he was wrongfully convicted
in the murder of an Ottawa firefighter.
Florence Driskell, who seem
dwarfed by her barrel-chested son, called yesterday "Good
Friday."
At a news conference later,
the soft-spoken 45-year-old father of eight repeatedly claimed
he did not know what to say about his startling release.
"There's not much I can
say about freedom, because I haven't had it for the last 14 years,"
Driskell said.
He will live with a friend
in Ste. Pierre Jolys, south of Winnipeg, while on bail. He celebrated
his release there last night with a quiet family gathering of
about 20 people, including children and grandchildren.
That friend -- a former convict
who now works at Stony Mountain Institution, where Driskell did
his time -- put up his home as surety for the bail. Manitoba's
most recent victim of wrongful conviction, Thomas Sophonow, contacted
Driskell to pledge his support as well.
Sophonow, who received $2.6
million for his wrongful conviction in the death of a Winnipeg
waitress, offered to put up the $50,000 in cash. "I can
appreciate what he's going through, to put it mildly," Sophonow
said from his home near Burnaby, B.C. "I wanted to make
sure that no matter what amount they set it at, that it wouldn't
be out of his reach."
Many of Driskell's supporters,
including James Lockyer, a Toronto lawyer and director of the
Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted, went on the
attack after the bail decision.
Lockyer said he and Winnipeg
lawyer Alan Libman will focus their efforts on convincing the
federal justice minister to take action under Sec. 696 of the
Criminal Code, which allows the minister to overturn a conviction
or order a new trial.
However, Lockyer said he is
confused and appalled by the decision of Manitoba Attorney General
Gord Mackintosh and the prosecutions branch of his department
to dismiss the new evidence and continue arguing that Driskell
is guilty.
"I appeal directly, as
do we all, to Manitoba Justice to finally take off the blinders
to acknowledge that (Driskell) is a victim of a miscarriage of
justice," Lockyer said.
James McCloskey, head of Centurion
Ministries, the New Jersey-based organization that is investigating
Driskell's case, said he is more convinced than ever that Driskell
will be proven innocent. "There is no question in my mind
that not only did (Driskell) not get a fair trial, but he's a
completely, factually innocent man."
Driskell's cause was bolstered
significantly by Justice John Scurfield of Court of Queen's Bench,
who took just one night to reach a decision to approve Driskell's
bail. Scurfield rejected Crown arguments there was still an abundance
of evidence tying Driskell to the murder, and determined the
new evidence might have overturned Driskell's conviction.
"Finally, I am satisfied
that if all of the new evidence had been presented to the Court
of Appeal following the original trial, the conviction would
probably have been set aside and he would probably have been
granted a new trial," Scurfield said.
Scurfield reviewed a large
body of new evidence, including DNA tests that excluded three
hairs used to convict Driskell, a recantation by a key witness
that was suppressed by the police, and secret cash payments and
an immunity deal for witnesses that were never disclosed to Driskell's
lawyers.
In order to be granted bail,
Driskell had to prove the evidence that he had not received a
fair trial was so compelling it would violate his right to liberty
to keep him in prison while Ottawa investigates his case.
Scurfield said the DNA results
alone were enough to meet the standard of evidence needed to
grant Driskell bail.
Additional new facts, particularly
the undisclosed witness payments and immunity deal, "could
have constituted the straw that broke the jury's confidence in
these witnesses," Scurfield said.
The tone and strength of Scurfield's
comments raise significant problems for Mackintosh and Manitoba
Justice, who one year ago dismissed the DNA results as unlikely
to have affected the jury's verdict and have failed to act despite
the emergence of other facts that weakened the original Crown
case.
Mackintosh refused an invitation
from Driskell's lawyers to take the evidence straight to the
Manitoba Court of Appeal in December 2002, to let the province's
highest court decide whether it warranted a new trial. Mackintosh
called the evidence "unsettling," but turned down the
request.
Mackintosh declined to comment
on the bail release, indicating he is awaiting the federal review
of the case. Premier Gary Doer issued much the same statement,
saying Driskell's case is better left to the courts to decide.
"The bottom line is we
respect the views of the judge. We always respect the separation
of the government of the day from the judicial system, and the
judge's decision we respect no matter what it would be,"
Doer said.
Lockyer, who refused comment
while the bail application was ongoing, said he was shocked at
Mackintosh's recent decision to launch a judicial inquiry into
allegations senior Crown officials deliberately withheld evidence
that could have prompted a new trial, yet refused to take that
evidence directly to the appellate court for an opinion.
"We once again appeal
to Manitoba Justice to acknowledge that (Driskell) is the victim
of a miscarriage of justice," Lockyer said. "I just
don't know what we have to do to convince them. It's incredible
to me that we are still at a stage where yesterday they were
opposing bail, and today they continue to oppose our application
to the justice minister in Ottawa."
There will also be difficult
questions for Winnipeg police Chief Jack Ewatski, who has been
criticized by Driskell's lawyers for refusing to release an internal
review of the case, a review he helped write more than 10 years
ago.
Ewatski said yesterday he had
no comment on Driskell's release from prison. Ewatski said because
of the ongoing court proceedings and federal review of the conviction,
it would be inappropriate to comment on yesterday's proceedings.
The police chief said he also
stood by the decade-old internal report that reviewed the police
investigation of the Driskell case and examined claims that Driskell
had been wrongly convicted. A judge ordered the report to be
released on Monday.
dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca
leah.janzen@freepress.mb.ca
-- with files from Bruce Owen
and Mia Rabson
'I figured
it was over for me'
- Driskell decided
in prison to stifle hope for freedom
Dan Lett, November 29th,
2003
Free Press reporter Dan Lett
has investigated Jim Driskell's case since 1999. Some of the
revelations in that investigation have raised serious questions
about police and prosecution tactics. This is the first print
interview Driskell has granted since his relase on bail.
IT took Jim Driskell only a
few seconds to realize that mysterious forces were at work.
It was Nov. 6, and Driskell
had arrived at the Law Courts Building in downtown Winnipeg to
hear his lawyers make an extraordinary application to release
him on bail while Ottawa reviews his claim that he's innocent
of first-degree murder.
When guards took him to a holding
cell to await his court appearance, Driskell could barely believe
what was happening. The cell was the same one he occupied 13
years earlier while awaiting the jury's verdict in his June 1991
trial.
And the coincidence didn't
end there.
"When they took me down
the elevator to go to court, I looked at the sheriff who was
escorting me, and it was the same sheriff who was monitoring
me at my original trial," Driskell said as he relaxed in
a downtown Winnipeg hotel room less than an hour after his release
on bail.
"He says to me, 'I was
at your first trial.' He said, 'It's funny how things come full
circle like that, isn't it?' "
Driskell spits out a nervous,
shaky laugh about the two startling coincidences. But then, he
can afford to laugh about it now that he is, for the time being,
a free man once again.
Justice John Scurfield of Court
of Queen's Bench accepted that enough new evidence had been uncovered
in Driskell's case to warrant freeing him on bail. The decision
paves the way for a full investigation by the federal Justice
Department under Sec. 690 of the Criminal Code, which gives the
justice minister the power to order a new trial or refer a case
for review in an appellate court.
Driskell's future remains unclear.
Manitoba Justice could continue to oppose his efforts to win
a new trial, which would leave him in legal limbo for months,
or even years, to come. For the time being, Driskell said he
is trying to focus on re-establishing relationships with his
eight children and 12 grandchildren, some of whom he has never
met.
For now, he said he will try
to recover from the haunting experience of the bail hearing,
where Manitoba Crown attorneys once again painted him as a ruthless
murderer who took the life of his friend, Perry Dean Harder,
in October 1990.
Driskell said he felt the weight
of new and compelling evidence would work in his favour and perhaps
persuade the Crown to support his bid for freedom. Startling
facts have been uncovered, including secret payments and immunity
deals for key Crown witnesses, a suppressed recantation from
another witness, and the elimination of three hairs used at trial,
thanks to DNA testing.
"Sitting in the prisoner's
box yesterday, when I heard them defend all these people who
put me away, I don't think you can print what I would have said.
These people, they got paid some big bucks, they got deals offered
to them. It's unbelievable to see the Crown attorneys defend
them."
Driskell was able to keep his
sanity -- and his mouth closed -- thanks to a steely determination
he developed duringr his time in prison. He learned to keep his
expectations low and his hopes buried. Early on in his life sentence,
Driskell said he decided to push aside all dreams of freedom
and concentrate on survival.
"Back then, I figured
it was pretty much over for me. I told myself, 'You're in this
for the long haul, a long time,' and I was going to set my mind
to doing the hard time. I never really lost hope; I just tried
to maintain a little bit of hope that somebody, something will
work out for me."
Small duffel
bag
Even the night before he was
released, Driskell said, he would not take for granted that he
would get bail. He said he returned to Rockwood Institution,
the minimum-security annex of Stony Mountain penitentiary, and
packed a small duffel bag with a few necessities.
But then, on the way out of
Rockwood, he was stopped by the warden, who told him that if
the judge approved bail, he would have to come back the next
week to collect his personal belongings. And if he did, prison
officials would take great pleasure in giving him a visitor's
badge to re-enter the institution.
"I said, 'What? A visitor's
badge?' That's when it hit me -- I'd no longer be an inmate."
One of the first things he
will try to do, now that he is out of prison, is teach those
children a hard lesson he never learned: Choose your path in
life -- and your friends -- very carefully.
Driskell lived a hard life
in Winnipeg's north end and kept the company of hard characters
for whom violence and crime were a way of life.
It was many of these people
who eventually drew him into a police dragnet and made him the
prime suspect in a murder.
Driskell's father, a bouncer
at a notorious downtown Winnipeg watering hole, was murdered
when he was just 44. Driskell said his life, if he can fully
reclaim it at some future date, will be devoted to breaking the
generational chains that run through his family and often lead
to tragedy.
"The chains that run through
your life -- from my parents to me, from me to my kids -- I want
to break those," he said. "I grew up with bad stuff
and it never bothered me. My dad grew up with it, and look what
happened to him. I want to give my kids and their kids a different
route in life."
Driskell said he sees some
hope in the innocence of his youngest children and grandchildren,
who are excited he is getting out of prison but not yet aware
of the totality of his experience. The night before his was released
on bail, Driskell said, he talked to nine-year-old granddaughter
Riley about what the immediate future held.
"She said, 'Grampa, I
see you on TV all the time now, and in the papers too,'"
Driskell recalled, his eyes glassy with tears.
"She said, 'Good luck
tomorrow, grampa. I love you.' That's all I needed to hear."
dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca
Sinclair's column
on Enns labelled 'an unjust attack'
November 29th, 2003
THE Manitoba Bar Association
yesterday rushed to the defence of retired provincial court judge
John Enns, whose appointment to lead an inquiry into the James
Driskell case was criticized by Free Press columnist Gordon Sinclair
Jr. Thursday.
"It was an unjust attack
on a fine person," Richard Buchwald, president of the MBA,
said last night.
In his column, Sinclair questioned
the province's appointment of Enns, who presided over the J.J.
Harper inquest, to conduct an independent review of how Manitoba
Justice handled Driskell's murder case. Sinclair wrote Thursday
that Enns "may be a decent, well-meaning man, but he can
hardly be called 'independent.'" Sinclair also wrote that
the former prosecutor is the judge "best known for his pro-police
witness mishandling of the J.J. Harper inquest, or so the Aboriginal
Justice Inquiry suggested."
In a MBA news release, Buchwald
said that's not entirely true. "While the AJI report stated
that Judge Enns reached conclusions with which it was unable
to agree, the AJI also stated that it had the benefit of evidence
which was not available or provided to Judge Enns."
The MBA news release accused
Sinclair of bias and said his "unwarranted attack"
serves to undermine an independent judiciary, the "cornerstone
of our democratic system."
Said Sinclair yesterday: "Mr.
Buchwald et al are entitled to their interpretation and their
opinion. And so am I."
Ewatski's no-stick coating
wears thin Blog
about Ewatski
GORDON SINCLAIR JR., November
29th, 2003
THERE is Teflon.
And then there is Teflon-plus,
the kind of no-stick stuff Jack Ewatski seems to have patented
since he was anointed Winnipeg police chief six years ago.
The Blue Flu comes to mind,
the sickening internal police revolt. So, of course, do the 911
murders that showed fatal systemic flaws in the way police handled
emergency calls. And the accusation from one of his professional
standards officers that he interfered in an investigation.
None of it stuck.
But, given that his contract
is up, there are those who think the latest crisis -- the suspected
1991 wrongful murder conviction of Jim Driskell -- could be the
ooey-gooey stuff he'll finally have to wear.
This week, when the attorney
general was ordering a one-man probe of the justice system's
conduct in the case -- and a judge was releasing Driskell on
bail pending a decision by Ottawa about a new trial -- Ewatski
was angrily and defiantly standing his ground over a 10-year-old
internal case review he co-authored on the police handling of
the case.
'No new evidence'
Ewatski told reporters his
review concluded "that there was no new evidence that would
lead us to believe James Driskell was not involved in the death
of Perry Dean Harder."
But two of Manitoba's most
respected judges -- Jeff Oliphant and John Scurfield -- voiced
doubts this week about whether there is in fact enough evidence
to conclude that Driskell was involved.
Ewatski also said this at his
news conference this week: "I continue to stand by the conclusions
of the review..."
If that's the case, then Winnipeg's
police chief has to stand by some of the other conclusions he
and two other cops came to in the fall of 1993 when Ewatski was
an inspector and then-chief Dale Henry ordered the review because
he didn't want the Driskell case becoming another Milgaard affair.
Here is one conclusion Ewatski
presumably still stands by from his report:
"Although the investigators
were able to obtain valuable evidence from the witnesses in this
investigation, it appears the methods used by some of them may
cause concern if this investigation is reviewed in a public forum."
The Ewatski-led review also
detailed a dispute between a Saskatchewan RCMP officer and two
Winnipeg detectives over whether star witness Ray Zanidean was
or wasn't promised immunity for an arson in Swift Current.
"Although this (the arson/immunity)
issue did not become vitally important during the Driskell trial,"
the internal review warned, "one can be assured that it
could, and probably would, be a serious source of embarrassment
if this matter is reviewed in another type of public forum."
I suspect the two judges found
the still confusing immunity issue -- did police promise Zanidean
immunity before the trial or didn't they? -- of vital import
when they read the report this week.
They might also have found
of interest this comment about Zanidean in the internal report:
"It is certain his evidence,
given in testimony, was the prime reason the jury convicted Driskell
for the murder of Perry Dean Harder."
Which leads to this zinger
that opened a chapter in the report entitled "Concerns":
"The prime concern"
centred on "suspicions" about Zanidean.
Ewatski et al concluded that
"a large question still surrounds his credibility."
"Although we have suspicions
we have not uncovered any solid evidence that would prove he
was being untruthful during his testimony relating directly to
the murder..."
But there is the probability
that the Crown's star witness committed perjury under questioning
about the Swift Current arson, something that just might have
affected his credibility if it had been known at trial or upon
appeal.
So why has Jack Ewatski remained
so defiant about Driskell's guilt?
It's hard not to look at Ewatski's
uptight and defensive news conference manner this week and not
contrast it with his warm and fuzzy demeanor while apologizing
on behalf of the police service for the tunnel vision that led
to the arrest of Tom Sophonow.
Ewatski would never see the
irony in all of this -- that he might be a victim of tunnel vision
in the Driskell case.
In Ewatski's mind, of course,
there are two obvious differences between the Driskell investigation
and the Sophonow case.
He knows Sophonow is innocent,
but he can't say the same about Driskell.
And, of course, Ewatski had
nothing to do with the Sophonow murder investigation, so he's
got no personal baggage.
Nevertheless, given his experience
with the Sophonow review he ordered and his intimate knowledge
of the now-suspect investigation of Driskell, Ewatski might have
offered the internal review to Driskell's lawyers.
He pointed out this week that
the police responsibility is confined to gathering the evidence
and supplying it to the Crown.
A rather narrow definition
for someone sworn to uphold the law to take.
In any event, the internal
report -- and its embarrassing conclusions -- weren't shared
with the Crown until Driskell's defence team used a legal provision
to exhume the long-buried document.
In the end, if Jack Ewatski
still wants the police chief's job, it's probably his. On the
whole, I think he's been a good chief.
And, after all, he's done nothing
wrong in the Driskell case.
He simply failed to do the
right thing.
gordon.sinclair@freepress.mb.ca
Important events in the James Driskell case:
- June 16, 1990 -- Perry Harder, 30, leaves his Winnipeg
rooming house in his pickup truck and is not seen alive again.
Three months later, someone on a passing train spots his body
in a shallow grave in the city's north end. Police say he was
shot several times and his body was taken in a van and dumped
near the train tracks.
October
23, 1990 -- Harder's friend,
James Driskell, is charged by police with first-degree murder.
Just days before Harder's disappearance, he and Harder were to
appear in court on charges of possession of stolen property.
They had been working a "chop shop" together, cutting
up stolen cars and selling the parts. Police say Driskell killed
Harder because Harder was going to testify against him.
June 1991: James
Patrick Driskell is convicted of first-degree murder. He is sentenced
to life in prison with no hope of parole for 25 years.
January
1992: Saskatchewan Justice writes to Bruce
Miller, head of Manitoba Justice prosecutions branch, alerting
him that Winnipeg police promised a key Crown witness, Ray Zanidean,
immunity for a Swift Current arson without authorization from
Saskatchewan Justice. Further, Saskatchewan officials indicate
they are convinced Zanidean committed perjury while testifying
against Driskell, and urge Miller to disclose the evidence to
Driskell's lawyers at the earliest opportunity.
Saskatchewan brings to Miller's attention a recent decision in
the Supreme Court of Canada, R. vs. Stinchcombe, which obligates
police and prosecutors to disclose all evidence to defence counsel.
March 9,
1992: Saskatchewan contacts
Miller again, this time providing a copy of an RCMP investigation
into the Swift Current arson, showing how Zanidean committed
perjury about details of his arson case when he testified against
Driskell. Again, Saskatchewan asks Miller to disclose these materials
to Driskell's lawyers.
July 1992: Miller
sends the Saskatchewan materials to Crown Attorney George Dangerfield,
who prosecuted Driskell and who argued against his appeal. Miller
tells Dangerfield he is leaving the material in Dangerfield's
hands "for whatever action you deem appropriate." He
does not ask Dangerfield to disclose the materials.
December
1992:Manitoba Court of
Appeal denies Driskell's appeal for a new trial. The court hears
no mention of the Saskatchewan materials disclosed to Miller
and Dangerfield 10 months earlier.
March 11,
1993:Miller writes to Dangerfield
again, asking if "that information was disclosed to Mr.
Driskell? If not, should we do so at this time?" Dangerfield
returns the memo with a handwritten note indicating that he does
not recall the material, and that he hesitates to agree to turn
anything over to Driskell's lawyers without first looking at
it.
March 15,
1993:Justice Minister Jim
McCrae announces he has called for a review of the Driskell case
because of media reports questioning the conviction. The next
day, Dangerfield prepares a memo on the Driskell case and the
media reports. In the four-page note, addressed to the Deputy
Attorney General Ron Perozzo, Dangerfield dismisses criticism
of the prosecution, and repeats the evidence presented at trial.
Dangerfield does not include any of the new evidence from Saskatchewan
in his note to Perozzo.
April 13,
1993: Miller writes to Assistant Deputy Minister
Stu Whitley about the Saskatchewan materials, indicating that
on several previous occasions the two men had discussed the issue
of disclosure to Driskell's lawyers. Miller stated in the memo
that in his opinion, "it would be inappropriate for us to
withhold the information. From what I gather it was due to an
oversight that Mr. Dangerfield did not address this issue when
it was first brought to his attention last July."
Miller goes on to say that Dangerfield has been asked to draft
a letter to Driskell's lawyers, explaining the delay.
(Greg Brodsky, counsel for Driskell has sworn an affidavit indicating
he never received that letter from Dangerfield and never received
the materials from Saskatchewan.)
November
4, 2003 -- David McNairn,
who reviews convictions for the federal Justice Department, conducts
a preliminary review of Driskell's case and says in a letter
"there may be a reasonable basis to conclude that a miscarriage
of justice likely occurred." The department begins a thorough
investigation into the Driskell case under Section 696 of the
Criminal Code, which allows justice minister to overturn a conviction
or order a new trial.
November
24, 2003 -- Associate Chief
Justice Jeffrey Oliphant of Court of Queen's Bench orders the
1993 police review be made public on the grounds it could help
Driskell not only in his bail bid but in proving his conviction
may have been a miscarriage of justice.
November
25, 2003 -- Police and
Manitoba prosecutors point fingers. Ewatski, now Winnipeg police
chief, holds a news conference to say "all available evidence"
in the case was turned over to prosecutors, but Bruce McFarlane,
Manitoba's deputy attorney general, immediately issues a statement
that Ewatski's claims are "inconsistent with the information
in the Crown's file."
November
26, 2003 -- Manitoba Justice
Minister Gord Mackintosh asks former provincial court judge John
Enns to review how the Crown and police handled the Driskell
case and whether all evidence was handed over to Brodsky.
November
28, 2003 -- Driskell is
freed on bail pending the federal review of his case. In releasing
him, Justice John Scurfield says he has concerns about the conviction
and focuses on the hair samples. "A (key) piece of evidence
that the jury relied on was wrong," he says.
- dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca
- -- With files from Canadian
Press
Key
players in the James Driskell prosecution
Thursday, November 27th,
2003
 George
Dangerfield
Now in private practice, Dangerfield
was for many years the top gun in the Crown attorney's office.
Dangerfield was singled out by former Supreme Court Justice Peter
Cory in the Thomas Sophonow inquiry for failing to disclose key
evidence to Sophonow's lawyer that contributed to his wrongful
conviction.
Bruce Miller
During the Driskell prosecution,
Miller was the director of public prosecutions. Five months after
Driskell's conviction, he was given new evidence by Saskatchewan
attacking the credibility of a star Crown witness. That evidence
was never provided to Driskell's counsel.
Miller is currently associate
chief judge of the provincial court.
Stuart Whitley
The assistant deputy minister
of justice in 1992, Whitley was one of the Justice department's
most senior officials, and formed a critical link between the
prosecution's branch and the highest levels of the department,
the minister and deputy minister. Whitley was aware of the Saskatchewan
materials, but appears to have issued no directive they be disclosed
to Driskell's lawyers.
Whitley, who has published
two novels, is currently a senior counsel with the federal Justice
Department in Vancouver.
Jack Ewatski
The current chief of the Winnipeg
Police Service, Ewatski was asked in 1992 by former chief Dale
Henry to conduct a review of the Driskell investigation after
media raised concerns Driskell was wrongly convicted. His 175-page
report was kept hidden until this month, when a Winnipeg judge
ordered it released to the public.
Driskell's lawyers believe
the report contains a jackpot of new evidence on the case; Ewatski
continues to argue he uncovered no new evidence that would help
Driskell prove his innocence.
 Greg
Brodsky
The star defence lawyer who
represented Driskell at his murder trial, Brodsky maintains he
was never told about new evidence from Saskatchewan, even though
it was provided to Manitoba Justice months before his appeal.
To this day, Brodsky believes Driskell was wrongly convicted.
dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca
|
Truth can never be
told so as to be understood, and not be believ'd. William Blake, The Proverbs of Hell