Wrongful Convictions.pdf - Robson Hall Faculty of Law

Wrongful Convictions 15to consider whether there is a reasonable basis to believe that, by virtue of thisevidence, a miscarriage of justice has taken place.Amongst other issues, the Committee shall consider:1. the nature of the evidence tendered in the context of the trialrecord;2. whether, with the benefit of current scientific expertise, theconclusions tendered by the Crown at trial were incorrect;3. the extent to which the Crown relied upon this evidence to provethe case;4. any comments made by the trial judge concerning the probativevalue or weight to be given to this evidence;5. any other factors that may assist in assessing whether a miscarriageof justice has occurred. 47In essence, the committee was asked to do a double check on murdercases that had been prosecuted in the province during the preceding 15years, to see if there were any inmates still behind bars who had beenconvicted, in part or largely, on the basis of hair microscopy evidence.AIDWYC had been consulted on the initiative, was supportive, andattended the public announcement to express its support. 48 Thecommittee was given one year to report, and was empowered to do anytesting it thought necessary to complete the task.On August 19, 2004 the committee filed its report, which was madepublic the following month. From an initial inventory of 175 cases, 136were eliminated for various reasons (such as an appeal against convictionwas allowed). That left 39. The trial transcripts of each of the remainingcases were reviewed, and 37 were eliminated for various reasons—forinstance, that hair comparison evidence had not been tendered, or thedefence had been run on a basis other than factual innocence. Two casesremained: Kyle Unger and Robert Sanderson. 4947Forensic Evidence Review Committee, Final Report (Winnipeg: Manitoba Departmentof Justice, 2004) at 3–4, online: [FERC Final Report].48Although, in fairness, it should be noted that AIDWYC would have preferred thescope to be wider. The recommendation advanced by AIDWYC during the Driskellinquiry in support for a national review mirrors to a certain extent the mandateprepared by Manitoba: Driskell Report, supra note 9 at 181.49Both had been found guilty at trial, and had their convictions affirmed unanimouslyby the Manitoba Court of Appeal: R v Unger (1993), 83 CCC (3d) 228, 85 Man R (2d)284 [Unger cited to CCC]; R v Sanderson, 134 Man R (2d) 191 (available on WL Can)[Sanderson cited to Man R].