The miscarriage of justice suffered by two New Brunswick men reflects everything that is wrong with the Canadian justice system, say the lawyers who have proven their innocence.
Lawyers for Innocence Canada argued in a written statement submitted to the court Thursday that police narrow-mindedness, failure to disclose key evidence and false statements from two key key witnesses, and disregard for the defendants' alibi led to the guilty verdicts for Robert Mailman and Walter Gillespie in 1984.
Robert Mailman, now 76, and Walter Gillespie, 80, were sentenced to 18 and 21 years in prison, respectively. On Thursday, Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench Tracey DeWare declared that the two men were legally innocent in connection with the murder of George Gilman Leeman, which occurred on November 30, 1983, in Saint-Jean, New-Brunswick.
They were convicted of second-degree murder in 1984 and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for 18 years. An appeal against their convictions was rejected in 1988.
Open in full screen mode
The Minister of Justice Arif Virani.
Photo: The Canadian Press / Sean Kilpatrick
Federal Justice Minister Arif Virani overturned both convictions last month, saying there were reasonable conclusions that a miscarriage of justice likely occurred in the case 40 years ago.
The legal document presented to the court is dated November 30, 1983. On that day, a runner discovered the partially burned body of George Leeman in a wooded area in Saint-Jean, New Brunswick. He had received about twenty blows to the head and face. A pathologist concluded that death occurred at least 24 hours ago.
Open in full screen mode
Robert Mailman and Walter Gillespie leave the courthouse in Saint-Jean, New Brunswick, on Thursday afternoon.
Photo: Radio-Canada
Innocence Canada's lawyers question the witnesses' credibility. One of them pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of manslaughter in exchange for her testimony against Mailman and Gillespie.
They also added that neither police nor prosecutors took into account the defendants' strong alibis. They noted that at least four public inquiries had found similar problems in other miscarriage of justice cases.
According to Innocence Canada, alibis were not taken into account
The two men said they were repairing a car when the murder occurred. They wanted to get a part to repair a windshield wiper. A witness confirmed the story, a receipt was discovered in the store where the part was purchased on November 29th, as we can read in the lawyers' document.
Open in full screen mode
Ron Dalton spoke on behalf of Robert Mailman and Walter Gillespie at the Saint-Jean Courthouse.
Photo: Radio-Canada
Innocence Canada mentions that Saint-Jean police investigated the alibi following the conclusion of an initial trial due to a jury disagreement. She was able to confirm that the windshield wiper had recently been repaired, but did not inform the defense of this.
However, that did not stop the Crown from urging the jury in a second trial to conclude that it was a false alibi, despite ample evidence to the contrary.
Several witnesses recanted
Two of the key witnesses have recanted. For one of them, it even happened five times, notes Innocence Canada. The witness in question recanted his statement to his lawyer, a journalist in two letters and a lawyer from the Federal Ministry of Justice who reviewed the trial in 1998.
He said he presented false evidence in court and was coerced into doing so by Detective Al Martin and Saint John Police Deputy Chief Charlie Breen, lawyers say. However, in an initial statement to police in December 1983, which was never shared with the defense, this witness stated that he had last seen the victim a week before the murder.
Open in full screen mode
However, the Saint-Jean police refused to comment on the matter for now.
Photo: CBC / Brian Chisholm
Saint John police declined to comment on the case, saying they were awaiting a hard copy of the Justice Department review that led to the trial and acquittal of Robert Mailman and Walter Gillespie.
According to Innocence Canada, when witnesses recant, it is impossible to determine who is telling the truth and who is lying. In such a case, the police and the Crown would have had to reject their representations of the facts for lack of corroboration.