Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Hon. Ross Landry

Hon. Ross Landry

Ratings: (0)|Views: 832|Likes:
Letter from Fen MacIntosh to Justice Minister Ross Landry.
Letter from Fen MacIntosh to Justice Minister Ross Landry.

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: The Chronicle Herald on Sep 19, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/27/2013

pdf

text

original

 
1
Honourable Ross Landry 25.05.2013Nova Scotia Minister of Justice5151 Terminal RoadHalifax, Nova ScotiaSubject: The case of Ernest Fenwick MacIntoshDear Minister LandryI know that you are familiar with the subject case; it maybe however that you are not awareof the many very important details which have not been reported in the media.For this reason I have compiled a few excerpts (attached) from the unanimous decision of the Nova Scotia Appeal Court.You are aware of course that the Nova Scotia Appeal Court decision was appealed to theSupreme Court of Canada by your prosecutors, and that their appeal was dismissed with aunanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.I have also compiled (attached) a few relevant excerpts from the decision of Chief JusticeKennedy.As background to this letter, please understand that I have always maintained innocence of these charges; that with my legal team (and with a private investigation firm) we undertooka vigorous defence which resulted in a unanimous decision of the Nova Scotia Appeal Courtwhich vindicated my position.The Appeal Court seriously questioned the credibility and collusion of the complainants(
which the trial judge had “ignored”
) and stayed all of the charges.
NSCA decision
 
Page 48 (137 &139) & page 63 (178 & 179)
The Appeal Court ruled that the trial Judge erred in a number of respects; in failing toaddress the issues of collusion, and to properly deal with significant problems of credibility;and that
the trial judge’s reasoning revealed serious misapprehensions of 
importantevidence that was material to the convictions.
NSAC decision page 4 (7), page 54 (153), page 57 (161)& page 63 (179)
The Appeal Court ruled that even if the charges were not stayed by the delay issues, theconvictions could not stand. Justice Beverage wrote
“I would vacate all of the convictions
entered by Kenned
y C.J.N.S. and MacDonald J. and enter a stay on all charges”.
NSAC decisionpage 46 (131 & 133) & page 37/38 (107)
 The Appeal Court referred to evidence wherein
“the allegations of the complainantschanged over time” and specifically referred to the evidence of the “main complainant” who
on many occasions demonstrated, beyond doubt, that his testimony was not credible.
NSACdecision
 
page 27 (82), page 58 (166), page 59 (169 & 170)
The Appeal Court particularly emphasized the allegations regarding DRS
testimony that hewas sexually assaulted on half a dozen occasions in the basement TV room of his familyhome, when he was a child. DRS even brought the RCMP to his family home to make a video
 
2
record of the basement, while he described the alleged assaults
in “vivid” detail.
NSACdecision
 
Page 59 (171), page 61 (173, 174, 175)
Subsequently, evidence
(by DRS’ father)
at the preliminary hearing confirmed our findingthat the basement and the TV room did not even exist until 1981 (six years after thetimeline of charges) when DRS was twenty years old.The Appeal Court wrote
that “the trial Judge failed to direct himself to a lie by the witness
which would taint his entire
evidence”. The
Appeal Court ruled that in his testimony
DRS
deliberately lied
,
demonstrated a marked disregard
 
for the truth
,
or was patentlyunreliable
”.
NSAC decision
 
Page 61 (175) & page 62 (176)
 DRS also made a complaint of rape; and during the preliminary hearing he described (underoath) the alleged anal intercourse in scurrilous detail. However during the trial he admittedthat it never happened.Another complainant, JH (who is a cousin of DRS) also admitted under oath that he lied tothe RCMP about being sexually assaulted in Port Hawkesbury. The trial judge ignored thatimportant fact and entered a conviction. The conviction however was also overturned bythe Appeal Court.It should be noted that your prosecutors appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, theentire decision of the Appeal Court of Nova Scotia, including the finding of collusion, thefinding of unreliable testimony of the complainants, and the finding of misapprehension of evidence by the trial judge.It should be emphasized that the entire appeal was unanimously dismissed by the SupremeCourt of Canada.Unfortunately, in their reporting of the case, the media organizations refer only to the issuesof delay (which are significant and extremely prejudicial) however the other issues such ascollusion among the complainants, credibility of the complainants, and misapprehension of evidence by the trial judge, are equally significant and prejudicial, albeit ignored by themedia.It should also be noted
that Justice Kennedy C.J.N.S ruled regarding complainant WR that “I
do not consider that he was a child at that
time”.
Kennedy decision page 35 (1-2)
 
Regarding complainant RM, The Chief Justice ruled “he was not a child at that time, he wasa young man”.
Kennedy decision page 51 (15)
 
Regarding complainants DRS and JH, Justice Kennedy ruled they were “young men”.
Kennedydecision page 59 (10
 –
15)
 Despite these judicial rulings, your prosecutors (and the media organizations) consistentlyreferred to the complainants as children, even in arguments before the Supreme Court of Canada.
 
3
I recently read media reports of Premier Dexter complaining that the Supreme Court of Canada decision was disappointing. Perhaps he did not take time to brief himself on detailsof the case before making such an unjust statement; however I hope that your departmentof 
Justice
does not
support the Premier’s
opinion.I also read media reports suggesting that your department may initiate an inquiry into thedelay issues of this case.I would welcome an inquiry, but I would expect any inquiry to focus on all aspects of thecase, particularly the collusion among the complainants, the blatant misrepresentation of the truth by the complainants, the deliberate lying by at least two of the complainants, andthe sloppy misrepresentation of evidence by the trial judge, as well as delay issues.
Regarding complainant DRS, I believe (in light of the Nova Scotia Appeal Court ruling thathe deliberately lied) that he should be charged with perjury, with misleading a policeinvestigation, with mischief, and with any other relevant charges.Similar actions should be taken against JH.
I suffered immensely because of those false allegations. I lost my job as Vice President of amultinational telecom equipment manufacturer. I lost all my belongings which I took toIndia as well as those items which I accumulated during fourteen years living there,including furniture, household effects, a car, a pick-up truck, and an SUV.My flat was ransacked by the Indian Police, my computers seized and searched, and mypersonal files were seized and lost forever.I was incarcerated for two months in the notorious Tihar Prison; I slept on a dirty cementfloor among vermin, reptiles, and notoriously dangerous criminals.I was incarcerated in Nova Scotia for an additional seventeen months, much of that time insoli
tary confinement, and at other times forced to sleep on the floor of a “one bunk” cell,
inches from the open toilet.I was detained on house arrest for an additional three and a half years.I was severely beaten (twice) by other inmates during the time of my incarceration.I was evicted from my apartment while on house arrest because of the 24 x 7 disturbancescaused by police visits.I was refused car service by a local service centre because of the adverse publicity generatedby dozens of media organizations.My life was threatened several times, once by a complainant
 –
nothing was done about it -another time via face book, and several times by inmates.I suffered financially; my bank accounts were frozen by the Court and I was ordered totransfer all my foreign money and investments to Canada, at a severe loss of foreignexchange and transfer rates, and by premature selling of bonds and closing of termdeposits.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->