The Prosecution of Ernest Fenwick MacIntosh July 10

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Overview of R. v. Ernest Fenwick MacIntoshThe First ComplaintIn 1995 a man entered a British Columbia RCMPdetachment to report that as a boy growing upin Port Hawkesbury, Nova Scotia in the 1970s hehad been sexually assaulted by area businessmanErnest Fenwick MacIntosh.And so began one of the longest and one of themost complex historical sexual assault cases NovaScotia has seen. It would involve nine complainantsand 43 criminal charges. It would see a fugitivebrought back to Canada from India and it wouldsee a journey all the way to the Supreme Courtof Canada in an attempt to bring that fugitive tojustice.By the end of 1995 two criminal charges had beenlaid. The criminal complaint came about six monthsafter Mr. MacIntosh had left Canada to work first inCalifornia and then in India.A warrant was issued for his arrest in early 1996.The RCMP was trying to locate Mr. MacIntoshthrough family and friends in the Port Hawkesburyarea. On August 25, 1996 the investigator wasgiven a phone number in India and made the call.He spoke to Mr. MacIntosh and told him of thecriminal charges and the warrant for his arrest. Mr.MacIntosh told the officer he had no intention ofcoming back to Canada and the line went dead.The local Crown Attorney conferred with theCape Breton Region Chief Crown Attorney whodiscussed the matter with Nova Scotia PublicProsecution Service management in Halifax. Allagreed that the charges were serious and that itwas in the public interest to pursue extradition.Throughout this period of time, the RCMPcontinued the criminal investigation and consultedwith the Crown on various options to return Mr.MacIntosh to Canada without a formal extraditionprocess.Meanwhile, the first complainant in BritishColumbia had begun writing letters to BCauthorities asking that they help to bring Mr.MacIntosh back to Canada and to justice. Theydirected him to their Nova Scotia counterparts. Hebegan to write to politicians, both provincial andfederal, asking for the same thing.PassportIn late 1997 the RCMP asked Canada Immigrationand Passport to red-flag Mr. MacIntosh withCustoms in the event he re-entered the country. Ifhe did, he would be arrested. The Passport officeinitiated an application to have Mr. MacIntosh’spassport revoked. It had just been renewed in May,1997 from where Mr. MacIntosh resided in India.Although passport revocation proceedings wereinitiated, they were inexplicably halted. The FederalDepartment of Justice and the Passport office sentletters to both Mr. MacIntosh and his lawyer datedApril 16, 1998. The letters advised that the decisionto revoke the passport had been withdrawn andconfirmed a resumption of “normal passportservices.” But the provincial Crown Attorneywas unaware of these 1998 events until theseletters were submitted by the defence in courtproceedings in 2009.6 Report to the Attorney General of Nova Scotia The Prosecution of Ernest Fenwick MacIntosh
Overview of R. v. Ernest Fenwick MacIntoshPreparing for ExtraditionThe International Assistance Group (IAG) ofthe Federal Department of Justice is the entityresponsible for the extradition process. In 1997the IAG and the Port Hawkesbury Crown Attorneybegan to talk about the case, how the process ofextradition works and what was necessary to bringMr. MacIntosh back to Canada. The Nova ScotiaPublic Prosecution Service formally asked the IAGin 1998 to begin working on the extradition of Mr.MacIntosh.Because of the unusual nature of this case -- oneinvolving an extradition request -- the SpecialProsecutions section of the Nova Scotia PublicProsecution Service got involved. The SpecialProsecutions Crown Attorney liaised with theIAG to clarify whether dual criminality could beestablished. Under international extradition law, theextraditing country -- in this case, India -- must besatisfied that the offence in the requesting country– Canada -- is also an offence there.Meanwhile, local area publicity had broughtanother complainant to the RCMP. Two morecharges were laid in 1999 and in the spring of 2000,the Crown Attorney in Port Hawkesbury becameaware of several potential complainants. He askedthe RCMP to put the investigator on the case fulltime.This RCMP officer was familiar with the PortHawkesbury area and could provide consistencythroughout the course of the investigation.to India. Under extradition law, the principle ofspecialty dictated that the accused could only beprosecuted for the charges specified at the time ofextradition. It would not be possible to extraditehim on the first few charges and prosecute him onothers that arose later. So, the investigation wouldhave to be thorough and complete.One challenge early in the investigation was theabsence of a quality photo of Mr. MacIntosh. Policewere having difficulty with photographic line-upsfor identification purposes. The first complainantcouldn’t identify Mr. MacIntosh due to the poorquality of the photo being used. So, the RCMPbegan efforts to acquire a current and good qualityphoto from Mr. MacIntosh’s passport file. Policereceived that photo in May, 2000.During 2000 and 2001 the police investigationwidened. Statements from seven morecomplainants were taken and charges nownumbered 43. The charges consisted mostly ofmultiple counts of indecent assault on a male andacts of gross indecency. Several complainantssuccessfully identified Mr. MacIntosh fromphotographic line-ups.Also in 2001, aware that Mr. MacIntosh’s passportwould be up for renewal in May of 2002, the RCMPconfirmed that Mr. MacIntosh remained on thePassport Control List in the event he attempted torenew his passport.The Crown Attorney had been cautioned by theIAG that all possible charges must be laid beforea formal extradition request can be forwardedReport to the Attorney General of Nova Scotia The Prosecution of Ernest Fenwick MacIntosh 7
Page 3 and 4: Table of ContentsTable of Contents
Page 5 and 6: Nova ScotiaPublic Prosecution Servi
Page 7: Role of the Crown AttorneyTo provid
Page 11 and 12: The Extradition Process ExplainedWh
Page 13 and 14: Overview of R. v. Ernest Fenwick Ma
Page 18 and 19: Significant Causes of Delay in MacI
Page 24 and 25: Actions Going ForwardImmediate Acti
Page 26 and 27: ConclusionThe MacIntosh case was a
Page 28 and 29: Appendix1998 February 07 The lead i
Page 30 and 31: Appendix2002 April 18 Crown advises
Page 32 and 33: Appendix2008 February 20 A bail hea
Page 34 and 35: Appendix2010 February 10 A hearing
Page 36 and 37: Notes
Page 38: Notes

The Prosecution of Ernest Fenwick MacIntosh July 10

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?