Case Study On Ivan Henry

On May 12,1982 Ivan Henery was arested VPD (Vancover Police Department) for series of BAE (Breaking and Entering). Little did Henery know that on that day his life would change his life forever. (1)He would be charged with seven rapes nine assults and one attempted rape.(McEween 2014). Henery would spend the 27 year’s behind bars for crimes he never commited. This paper will examine 3 key issues.The behaviour of the police 2. Behaviour of the crown/judge 3. The Eyewitness Testimoney. We will try to understand how these 3 issues influenced Henery’s conviction. Also this paper we will examine other high profile wrongfull convictions and try to understand why they happend and what similarity’s they have to the Ivan Henery Case. Lastly we will

These flaws are what led to the worngful Conviction of Henry in 1982. The behaviour of the Police, behaviour of the crown and judge and the eyewitness testimony all influcned the wrongfull conviction of Ivan Henry. In 1982 when Henry was arested for the alleged BAE (breaking and entering) the police arested him with out a warrant. On May 12 1982 Henry was put into a lineup aginst his will. According to a 1975 ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada no suspect could be forced into a lineup (2) (McEween 2014). During the Police interrogation Henry was asked about the first rape that had occurred on May 5, 1981 200 block West Henry responded that he did not even live in that area (3)(McEween 2014). When he was asked about the second rape Henry alibid out saying that he had been in Regina during the time of the rape. In turn Detective Sims used the VPD bulletin to intamidate fear into Henry of how serious trouble he was in. It is also important to note the the two detectives did offer a lie detector test to Henry which he asked for twice during the introgation but was never given. The behavior of the police during the arrest of Henry violated every protocol which would have most definiteily thrown his case out the

These flaws proved that Ivan Hnery did not commit the rapes which he was being charged for. Also due the the flaws in the eyewintess testimony the case should have been thrown out. During the Palimeinery herring the corwn asked the woman series of questions on of the witness Miss Browning was asked why she picked number 18 in the lineup she answerd that she was scared and the man being draged by the police didin’t have black hair(McEween 2014). The placared that was given to Hnery in the lineup was 12 not 18 (4)(McEween 2014). When the Crown asked another wtiness Miss Cardozo wether she saw her attacker in the court room today she said no. When asked if number 12 form the Lineup was in the court she said yes (5) (McEween 2014). During a phase of the preliminary hearing on of the eye witness told the court the she could not identify her attacker proving that the case had no probale cause that could take it to trial. The conducted of the eye witiness in the parelminary hearing proved beonyed any douth that there were serious issues when indentifing the man that was behind the crimes. Many of the witness gave statments that did not add up thus proving that there were serious isuues in to the authantcity of the statments by the eye witness. The goal of the Peleminery herring was to determin wether or not there was probale cause and looking at the statments given by the eye witness there was no probale