# data[].attributes.headline
Phillion meets the retired cop who he believes framed him

# data[].attributes.subject
Phillion meets the retired cop who he believes framed him

# data[].attributes.body
After being released from prison, Romeo Phillion met the police officer who arrested him for the murder and put him in prison. He then accused retired police officer Steve Nadori of framing him for the murder. This is relevant because it showcases the anger that Romeo was feeling towards the criminal justice system.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A friendly greeting quickly flared into a testy exchange yesterday when Romeo Phillion came face to face with the man who arrested him for murder more than three decades ago.

"How are you doing, other than this?" asked Steve Nadori, a retired Ottawa police inspector, referring to Phillion's conviction review hearing before the Ontario Court of Appeal.

"Good," Phillion replied.

"He's doing okay," a supporter chimed in.

"You should have done that 30 years ago," said Nadori as he stood beside Phillion outside an Osgoode Hall courtroom.

"Let me tell you something," said Phillion. "I should have never been charged with murder. This is a frame-up."

For his part, Nadori told a three-judge panel yesterday he would have never framed the 68-year-old former drifter. "And he knows it," he added.

Phillion's lawyers have presented a somewhat more complex scenario. They say their client falsely confessed to the August 1967 murder of Ottawa firefighter Leopold Roy. Nadori was questioned extensively yesterday by James Lockyer, one of Phillion's lawyers, on his willingness to accept Phillion's story despite its stark inconsistencies with known facts about the crime.

Seven hours after he confessed to the slaying on Jan. 12, 1972, Phillion placed a phone call to his mother from the Ottawa police holding cells, with Const. Claude Couture listening on an extension.

During the conversation in French, Phillion told her he confessed because he was "fed up" and prepared to "say anything." He also hoped to collect $2,500 in reward money for information about the crime and split it with Neil Miller, a 17-year-old drag queen with whom he resided.

Handcuffed to Nadori and accompanied by two other officers, Phillion was taken to the crime scene twice to re-enact the murder. The first time, he failed miserably.

He told police the murder happened at a rear stairwell of Roy's apartment building; the opposite was true. Roy was stabbed near the front of the building. Phillion also pointed to an apartment he claimed to have broken into before the murder, stealing jewellery and a knife used as the murder weapon.

But police later found the apartment hadn't been robbed. Phillion said he fled through the rear of the building, climbed into his car and drove along some "black bridges." But the bridges were for trains only and an eyewitness saw an intruder leaving from the front of the building soon after Roy was killed.

At a second re-enactment, Phillion's story aligned more closely with the facts and Det. Rolly Huneault, Nadori's former partner, told a court in 1972 it's possible police may have "fed" Phillion information.

Asked by Lockyer yesterday if they might have shown Phillion exactly what happened, Nadori said he didn't remember.

"You must remember - you were handcuffed to the guy," Lockyer persisted. Nadori said being handcuffed to Phillion is why he isn't able, today, to say what happened. "I couldn't make notes," he said.

"You'd have us believe that you're handcuffed to Romeo, and there are perhaps these conversations going on with (officers) Huneault and Norton, and you don't remember if there were because you were too busy worrying about whether he (Romeo) escaped?" asked Lockyer asked.

"I'm not trying to be a difficult person. But I do not remember. I'm under oath, and it means something to me," Nadori said.

Later yesterday, Nadori said he didn't know until five years ago that another Ottawa police detective investigated and confirmed Phillion's alibi in April 1968, concluding he couldn't have committed the murder. The report was never mentioned to the jury at Phillion's trial.

Nadori, who assembled the Crown's evidence for the trial, will likely be questioned more about that report today when the hearing resumes before Justices John Laskin, Michael Moldaver and James MacPherson.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Retired cop denies frame-up | Toronto Star

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A friendly greeting quickly flared into a testy exchange yesterday when Romeo Phillion came face to face with the man who arrested him for murder more than three decades ago. "How are you doing, other than this?" asked Steve Nadori, a retired Ottawa police inspector, referring to Phillion's conviction review hearing before the Ontario Court of Appeal.

# data[].attributes.body
Romeo Phillion passed away in Mississauga on November 2, 2015. He was wrongfully convicted, having spent 32 years in prison. Phillion’s and his family wanted to draw attention to the devastation , a wrongful conviction can cause to the innocent and their families.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An Ontario man who spent 32 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit died Monday morning.

The Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted announced Romeo Phillion's death Tuesday morning. Phillion spent 32 years in prison after being wrongfully convicted in the murder of an Ottawa firefighter in 1972.

"We extend our heartfelt condolences to Romeo's family, friends and supporters for their significant loss. Romeo will never be forgotten for his fighting spirit, sense of humour, support of other wrongly convicted and for his boyish and captivating charm," the association said in a statement.

"Romeo did what he could to draw attention to the devastation that a wrongful conviction imposes on the innocent individual and their family."

The Supreme Court of Canada had cleared in the way February for Phillion's $14-million lawsuit against the police and the Crown over his more than three decades behind bars.
READ MORE: Romeo Phillion sues for $14 million for wrongful murder conviction in 1972
Phillion, who was in his mid-70s, was convicted of second-degree murder in the death of Ottawa firefighter Leopold Roy, based on a confession he recanted almost immediately.

In 2009, the Ontario Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial, but the Crown withdrew the charge, saying too much time had passed.

The Appeal Court found that police had initially verified an alibi showing Phillion's innocence but never told the defence about it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
association in defence of the wrongly convicted

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Romeo Phillion, jailed for 32 years after wrongful murder conviction, has died

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An Ontario man who spent 32 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit died Monday morning. The Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted announced Romeo Phillion's death Tuesday morning. Phillion spent 32 years in prison after being wrongfully convicted in the murder of an Ottawa firefighter in 1972.

# data[].attributes.body
A timeline from the date Roy was stabbed in 1967 all the way to when the Crown finally withdraws the murder charge in 2010. Romeo Phillion was in prison for 31 Years just because of what he says was “all a bad joke that cost him his life.” Luckily, on July 21st 2003 he was released on bail while the federal justice minister investigates whether he was wrongfully convicted. Then finally on April 29th 2010, the crown withdrew their charges and Phillion was free again.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Aug. 9, 1967

Ottawa firefighter Leopold Roy is stabbed to death.

1972

Romeo Phillion is convicted of Roy's murder. Though he confessed to the murder while in custody on a robbery charge, Phillion immediately recanted and has maintained his innocence ever since.

Phillion appealed the conviction but to no avail. He has refused to apply for parole, saying it would be an admission of guilt.

When he was later asked why he confessed, Phillion would only say it was all a bad joke that cost him his life.

May 15, 2003

Phillion files an application asking Ottawa to set aside his conviction and order a new trial.

A police report not shown to the defence at the original trial confirms Phillion was stuck at a service station 200 kilometres from Ottawa, in Trenton, Ont., when the crime took place, according to Phillion's lawyer and a group of law students from York University's Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto. The group, called "The Innocence Project," also says there's evidence that four Crown witnesses all changed their testimony about when they saw Phillion in Ottawa.

June 2003

Ontario Superior Court Justice David Watt says he is satisfied that he has jurisdiction to rule on Phillion's bail application. However, he says he does not have the power to determine whether the 1972 conviction was justified.

July 21, 2003

The Ontario Superior Court releases 64-year-old Romeo Phillion on $50,000 bail while the federal justice minister investigates whether he was wrongfully convicted. Phillion had been in jail for 31 years. He will live at his sister's home in Mississauga, Ont., while his case is being reviewed.

As a condition of his bail, Justice Watt said Phillion should receive support from the John Howard Society, a prisoners' rights group, and St. Leonard's House, which provides assistance for the reintegration of prisoners into society. "It would be unfair in my mind, unthinkable, to turn loose a person who has been in prison for three decades" without some sort of support, he said.

The review of the case could take as long as a year, according to Phillion's lawyer, James Lockyer. If Phillion's innocence is proven in court, his jail time would make him the longest-serving wrongfully convicted prisoner in Canadian history, says Lockyer.

August 23, 2006

Federal Justice Minister Vic Toews asks the Ontario Court of Appeal for help in determining whether to order a review of Phillion's conviction. Toews requests a ruling on whether expert reports on Phillion's confession and fresh evidence alleging information was suppressed at trial would be admissible if the case were reviewed in an appeal.

January 2008

The Ontario Court of Appeal reopens Phillion's case, seeking testimony from police and lawyers involved in the case. Retired police superintendent John McCombie tells the court he never mentioned Phillion's alibi during the course of Phillion's trial because he was "never asked." McCombie also says he couldn't remember all of the details of Phillion's case.

The Crown prosecutor in the 1972 murder trial, Malcolm Lindsay, denies that he misled Phillion's defence lawyer or suppressed evidence that would have exonerated Phillion. Phillion's former defence lawyer, Arthur Cogan, says he is "saddened and disturbed" that evidence of his former client's innocence may have been withheld.

Cogan says that Phillion's original confession to the crime, which he later recanted, was a desperate bid to protect his gay lover from other charges.

March 5, 2009

The Ontario Court of Appeal orders a new trial for Phillion as the province's top court strikes down his murder conviction. However, the court says in its 2-1 decision that it can not grant the acquittal Phillion seeks.

After the ruling, Ontario's attorney general moves to withdraw the charge instead of seeking the new trial.

Feb. 1, 2010

Phillion is scheduled to ask an Ottawa court to exonerate him instead of having the charges withdrawn.

Lockyer, his lawyer, will argue the court should order Phillion be arraigned so he can plead not guilty and be acquitted.

April 29, 2010

Crown prosecutors withdraw the murder charge, saying there was no longer any reasonable prospect of conviction.

Outside the Ottawa courtroom, Phillion said the presiding judge, in a statement following the Crown's withdrawal of charges, gave him a good birthday present.

"I got an apology from the judge, which was a gift today. I was not expecting that," he said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ottawa firefighter Leopold Roy is stabbed to death. Romeo Phillion is convicted of Roy's murder. Though he confessed to the murder while in custody on a robbery charge, Phillion immediately recanted and has maintained his innocence ever since. Phillion appealed the conviction but to no avail.

# data[].attributes.body
Romeo Phillion was pictured happy and smiling with his lawyers.

# data[].attributes.body
A side by side shot of Romeo when he was convicted vs when he was released 31 years later. This is important to Romeo's story because he changed so much over the years. He spent almost his entire adulthood behind bars.

# data[].attributes.body
A news article stating that the courts would allow Phillion to proceed with a wrongfully convicted lawsuit. This is important to the board because by the time Romeo went through with the lawsuit, he sadly passed away before receiving any of the compensaion.

# data[].attributes.body
False confessions are a lot more common in the Canadian criminal justice system than people realize. This article is important because it is a summarization of some of the wrongfully conflicted cases that have happened in Canada, showing how true that theory truly is.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Updated December 18, 2017 11:32:58

In 1961 Darryl Beamish, an affable and profoundly deaf 19-year-old, agreed with police that he'd savagely butchered a glamorous Perth heiress in her own bed with a tomahawk and a pair of dressmaking scissors.

Mr Beamish made a series of written confessions, following police interviews that were awash with leading questions. They were the backbone of a case that resulted in a death sentence, later commuted to life in prison.

He was later cleared of the 1959 murder of Jillian Brewer.

There isn't a person alive who hasn't occasionally acted as their own worst enemy.

But making a false confession to murder brings self-sabotage to a terrifying new level - and it's more common than most of us imagine.

Up to a third of wrongful conviction cases involve a false confession. Perth has been home to a string of such cases - and it's given the world's most isolated big city a reputation for miscarriages of justice.

Like that of teenager John Button, who in 1962 confessed to the hit-and-run death of his beloved fiancée Rosemary Anderson.

"I really thought that if I made a confession it wouldn't be of any good to them, because there was no evidence to back it up," Mr Button recalls.

"I hadn't run Rosemary down, so in order to get away from them I said, 'OK, whatever you say. If you want me to say I did it, I did it.'"

He was exonerated 44 years later.

Or consider Gene Gibson, a cognitively impaired Indigenous man who in 2010 falsely admitted fracturing the skull of a young white boy, a total stranger, for no apparent reason.

First the 21-year-old told police he'd hit the boy with his car. When they looked displeased with that answer, which didn't fit the forensic evidence, he tried again.

"Rock?"

No response.

"Pole?"

His conviction was overturned in April this year.

Or Andrew Mallard, a daydreaming drifter, who explained to police in detail how he thought a suburban shopkeeper might have been bashed to death in broad daylight in 1994, and even drew a picture of the murder weapon.

"If Pamela Lawrence was locking the store up, maybe she came in through the back way, the front door was already locked ... Maybe she left the key in the back door and that's why he had easy access, and that's why she didn't hear him until he was ... in the store," he recounted to police.

But was this a confession - or a theory?

Coercion, promises and outright lies

Each of these landmark cases, investigated in Earshot's Wrongful series, resulted in an overturned conviction, and the "confession" revealed for what it was: a con.

But how is lying to incriminate oneself even a thing?

As the issue of false confession becomes more widely studied, some clear answers are beginning to emerge.

Coercion by interrogators - both physical and psychological - features in the vast majority of false confessions.

Mr Button, painfully shy and diminutive, was punched in the stomach, denied food and water, and informed casually that his girlfriend, whom police insisted he had struck with his car, had died in casualty.

Mr Mallard, whose conviction was quashed by the High Court in 2006, testified that he was stripped bare by detectives in the course of his interrogation.

Suspects may even be told outright lies during interrogation, like "your girlfriend told us you did it" or "your fingerprint is on the murder weapon".

The tactic is illegal in Australia, but common nevertheless.

Detectives assured Mr Gibson that a friend had already dobbed him in for the murder of young Josh Warneke.

He was not told that the "witness" recanted the accusation within minutes of having made it, protesting that police had put the words into his mouth.

A classic good cop, bad cop tactic for eliciting a confession may involve an interrogator who appears to empathise with the suspect.

"Of course you were angry at her - it must have been infuriating to be treated like that," is an example Mr Button recalled from his own interrogation.

One very simple technique is simply rejecting the suspect's repeated denials - often for many hours on end - while implying that a confession will guarantee lenient treatment.

Mr Button, distraught and exhausted, fell prey to that strategy, as well, only to find himself arrested for wilful murder - a hanging offence at the time.

Mr Gibson, a native Pintupi speaker whose grasp of English was severely limited, was led to believe he would get "big time" jail if he entered a not-guilty plea, but only "little time" if he confessed.

Vulnerable people most at risk

People with disabilities, those with substance abuse, Indigenous people, and minors - are all significantly over-represented among the wrongfully convicted.

Mr Beamish was profoundly deaf at a time, the 1960s, when education for hearing-impaired Australians was in the dark ages. While his intelligence was later assessed to be normal, Mr Beamish was at best semi-literate.

"Me Kill Lady Cottesloe", he allegedly scrawled in the sand of the exercise yard while in custody.

At trial, Mr Beamish insisted that he'd written "Me NOT kill lady Cottesloe" - and that he did so in answer to a question from a fellow prisoner. That prisoner later mysteriously vanished.

Mr Beamish spent 15 years in jail, and was finally cleared of the murder in 2005.

Mr Mallard had been recently diagnosed with bipolar disorder and was a heavy cannabis user at the time he "confessed".

And Mr Gibson, with comprehensive cognitive impairments stemming from foetal alcohol syndrome disorder, almost certainly failed to grasp the consequences of his statements to police.

Not surprisingly, questioning minors without a parent present is another risk factor for false confession. Mr Button was never informed that his parents were waiting just outside the interview room.

Mr Beamish too was deliberately isolated from family support during questioning.

Suspects from vulnerable groups are also highly susceptible to suggestion ("Here's how we think you did it") andeager to please authority figures.

"Gratuitous concurrence" is the technical term for a disempowered person's tendency to nod and smile under interrogation - compliant responses which may be uncritically accepted as admissions of guilt by untrained observers.

Does the end justify the means?

Yet none of this explains why securing a conviction too often becomes an end in and of itself.

Some criminal justice experts cite "noble cause corruption" - basically, where police are so convinced of a suspect's guilt they believe the end (a conviction) justifies the means.

One former state attorney-general explained that "achieving closure" was "the whole point of the criminal justice system".

And achieving justice?

"Oh yes, of course. That too," he allowed.

Such notions are simply baked into our "winner-takes-all" adversarial system of justice, argues Bret Christian, author of Presumed Guilty: When Cops Get It Wrong, and Courts Seal the Deal.

Convictions at any cost become a zero-sum game that police, prosecutors and even the judiciary have shown themselves to be all too willing to play to the death.

In Australia, as elsewhere, juries and judges remain notoriously resistant to acquit in cases where the accused has made a confession and then recanted.

With increasing numbers of convictions being overturned, long-overdue reforms are being rolled out to prevent rather than repair the damage.

In Western Australia, tougher disclosure rules now block the withholding of evidence by prosecutors, and an overhaul of police training is underway, with particular emphasis on interviewing vulnerable individuals.

Old-school policing, with its reliance on "copper's instinct" and impatience with evidence-based forensics, is officially (although not always in practice) a thing of the past.

At the same time, new "right to appeal" legislation - recently introduced in South Australia and Tasmania, and currently being prepared in Western Australia - has smoothed the way for appeals based on fresh and compelling evidence.

Now if only humility could be achieved by legislative fiat too.

First posted December 18, 2017 07:30:00

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Updated December 18, 2017 11:32:58 In 1961 Darryl Beamish, an affable and profoundly deaf 19-year-old, agreed with police that he'd savagely butchered a glamorous Perth heiress in her own bed with a tomahawk and a pair of dressmaking scissors. Mr Beamish made a series of written confessions, following police interviews that were awash with leading questions.

# data[].attributes.headline
Supreme Court blocks Romeo Phillion wrongful prosecution lawsuit

# data[].attributes.subject
Supreme Court blocks Romeo Phillion wrongful prosecution lawsuit

# data[].attributes.body
The Ottawa police and the province of Ontario were trying to convince the Supreme Court of Canada to block Romeo from taking his wrongfully convicted case to court and suing them. The Ottawa police verified Romeo’s alibi in the first case that put him in jail but never told the defence about it which ultimately put him away for 31 years. Finally after many courts rejected his request to try again, the Court of Appeal finally decided he should at least have the chance to put it to a jury.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
TORONTO - The longest serving inmate in Canada to have a murder conviction thrown out faces a potential new obstacle in his bid to sue those involved in his prosecution.

Ottawa police and the province of Ontario are asking the Supreme Court of Canada to block Romeo Phillion, who spent 31 years in prison protesting his innocence, from pursuing his lawsuit for negligence and prosecutorial wrongdoing.

"They're ragging the puck," his lawyer, David Robins, said Wednesday.

"(They're) hoping that he's going to get old and pass away while they appeal."

While it is far from certain the country's top court will agree to hear the appeal, Phillion's supporters are unhappy at having to fight anew simply to have his lawsuit considered on its merits.

The Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted planned a news conference for Thursday - on the first International Wrongful Conviction Day - to draw attention to the case.

Now in his mid-70s, Phillion was convicted of second-degree murder in 1972 in the death of Ottawa firefighter Leopold Roy based on a confession he recanted almost immediately. He was jailed for life but always refused to seek parole, saying it would amount to an admission of guilt.

The federal government ultimately referred the case to the Ontario Court of Appeal, which quashed his conviction and ordered a new trial in 2009. The Crown then withdrew the charge, arguing too much time had passed to try him again.

In quashing the conviction, the Appeal Court found that police had initially verified an alibi showing Phillion's innocence but never told the defence about it, apparently because investigators subsequently found it to be untrue.

Phillion sued for $14 million, alleging negligence and wrongdoing by prosecutors and two Ottawa police officers.

In April last year, an Ontario Superior Court justice decided the suit would be an abuse of process because the Appeal Court had already rejected suggestions of wrongdoing by police or Crown and that too much time had passed to try Phillion's claim now.

However, the Court of Appeal ruled in July that Phillion should at least have a chance to put his case to a jury.

"It would further bring the administration of justice into disrepute to grant a stay in these circumstances and deprive the appellant of any opportunity to seek financial redress for his conviction when he did not have the opportunity to present a full defence at his trial," the Appeal Court ruled.

Lawyer Kirk Boggs, who represents the Ottawa police service and two officers involved, said the Appeal Court made mistakes in overturning the lower court ruling and allowing the lawsuit to proceed.

"The approach that they took raised significant issues with respect to the doctrine of abuse of process and how it should be applied," Boggs said Wednesday.

"It warrants the Supreme Court of Canada taking a significant look at it."

Boggs said he also wants the top court to take a look at the scope of a police officer's duty of care in relation to investigations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supreme Court asked to block Romeo Phillion wrongful prosecution lawsuit - iPolitics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
TORONTO - The longest serving inmate in Canada to have a murder conviction thrown out faces a potential new obstacle in his bid to sue those involved in his prosecution. Ottawa police and the province of Ontario are asking the Supreme Court of Canada to block Romeo Phillion, who spent 31 years in prison protesting ...

# data[].attributes.body
After spending almost half his life in prison, Romeo Phillion seeks compensation from the Canadian government for his wrongful conviction. This is important to the board because he was specifically looking for compensation before he dies, because he was released at an elderly age.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
TORONTO

Romeo Phillion - a 75-year-old man who spent almost half his life in prison for a wrongful murder conviction - says he wants to be compensated for the decades he spent behind bars before he dies.

Now his claim for compensation for the 31 years he was in prison faces another delay as the Ontario attorney general is waiting to find out if the Supreme Court of Canada will hear its appeal of the compensation order.

"I just want to be compensated before I die," Phillion said at an emotional press conference held Thursday at the Toronto office for the Association in Defence of the Wrongfully Convicted (AIDWC).

After new information became available in his conviction in the 1967 murder of an Ottawa firefighter, a new trial was ordered in 2009. The Crown withdrew the charge in 2010 because they had no reasonable hope of convicting him after 43 years.

Phillion sought damages from the province in 2012 but a Superior Court judge dismissed the claim.

However, the Ontario Court of Appeal set aside the dismissal in July of this year but the province announced last week it wanted the high court to hear their appeal.

"The Ontario government and the Crown attorneys are still dragging their feet on trying to compensate the poor man for the ordeal that he went through," AIDWC co-president Ron Dalton said Thursday. "He just wants to be compensated before he dies and at this point, after taking most of his life, that's the least the system owes him."

Ministry of the Attorney General spokesman Brendan Crawley said since the case is before the courts, "it would be inappropriate to provide any further comment."

Lawyer James Lockyer - who has represented Phillion in the past but is not his current counsel - said the Ontario government is "obfuscating and delaying Romeo's claim for compensation and making sure he doesn't get compensated.

"Let's take his case to a mediator, let an experienced retired judge look at his case," Lockyer said.

Phillion wiped away a tear as Dalton and Lockyer outlined the delays he's faced over the past several years.

"They want me to drop dead, that's what they want," Phillion said. "I want justice before I go. I need help. So help me."

Click here for a mobile-friendly link.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Romeo Phillion seeks compensation 'before I die'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
TORONTO Romeo Phillion - a 75-year-old man who spent almost half his life in prison for a wrongful murder conviction - says he wants to be compensated for the decades he spent behind bars before he dies.

# data[].attributes.headline
Raising Awareness for the lack of access to justice in Canada

# data[].attributes.subject
Raising Awareness for the lack of access to justice in Canada

# data[].attributes.body
Romeo Phillion supports the 'Flip your wig' for justice campaign. This movement is about raising awareness about the lack of access to justice in Canada. AIDWYC has also assisted Romeo Phillion in his wrongfully convicted case.

# data[].attributes.body
AIDWYC is an organization that helps and listens to people who were wrongfully convicted. For years they are been picking out the flaws in the justice system and trying to do something about it. Many people have spent years and years in prison for something they didn’t do and are scared to talk to the parole board in case it makes their situation worse. They just try to stick it out, but that’s when AIDWYC comes to help and support them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
AIDWYC (The Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted is a non-profit organization dedicated to identifying, advocating for, and exonerating individuals convicted of a crime that they did not commit and to preventing such injustices in the future through education and reform. The AIDWYC Foundation supports the charitable work of AIDWYC.

# data[].attributes.body
Romeo Phillion’s defence counsel argued his innocence. Two experts on the case state that Romeo suffered from an antisocial personality disorder. Also stating that he had sometime told lies to make himself feel important.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Author: Sarah Harland-Logan
Introduction: The Unsolved Murder of Leopold Roy
The story of Romeo's wrongful conviction began on August 9, 1967, when a firefighter named Leopold Roy was stabbed to death by an unknown assailant. His wife, Mildred, described the man to Ottawa Police officers, who then placed Romeo and his identical twin brother, Donald, in a police lineup. However, police learned that Donald had been out of town at the time that the murder was committed, so he was released. On August 13, however, Romeo was back in the police station, having been arrested on an unrelated charge. At this time Mildred observed him and said that, though she was not certain, she thought that Romeo resembled the man who had killed her husband. Since she could not make a positive identification, Romeo was released.[1]

The police did not make any headway in their investigation into Leopold's death for the next four-and-a-half years. During this period, Mildred identified three other men whom she believed resembled her husband's killer. Police eventually released all three of these suspects without laying any charges.[2]
Romeo's False Confession
On January 11, 1972, Romeo again found himself in trouble with the law. This time, he had been arrested for an armed robbery of a taxi driver. Although this matter was completely unrelated to Leopold's unsolved murder, in the end Romeo confessed to the murder, much to the surprise of Detective Huneault, the officer who interviewed him.[3] Romeo first asked Detective Huneault if Neil, Romeo's lover, had told him anything. When Detective Huneault played along and responded that Neil had said "a lot about the things you bragged about to him," Romeo suddenly confessed to murdering "the fireman." [4] He asked Detective Huneault to bring him a coffee so that they could talk about it.[5]

When Detective Huneault returned with the coffee, Romeo kept his side of the bargain. He explained that he had murdered Leopold many years ago, and said that he would make a full confession after being allowed to meet with Neil. The police allowed this meeting, and Romeo signed his confession shortly after.[6] Moreover, Neil informed the police that Romeo had made a similar confession to him four days prior to his arrest.[7] Romeo's reasons for making the false confession are complex and will be explored below. These deeply regrettable decisions would follow him for the rest of his life.
Romeo's Trial
Romeo's trial began on October 16, 1972. The Crown built its case on three key pieces of evidence:

(1) Mildred's identification of Romeo as the man who had killed her husband (notwithstanding the fact that she had also identified four other people as his killer);[8]

(2) Romeo's confession to the crime, which he had given freely;[9] and

(3) Romeo's earlier confession to Neil.[10]

Romeo's defence counsel argued that despite these confessions, his client was innocent. He led evidence from two experts who stated that Romeo suffered from antisocial personality disorder, and that he had a propensity "to lie and to invent stories to make him feel important." The experts believed Romeo's desire to feel important had prompted him to falsely confess to Leopold's murder.[11] Moreover, on the very night of his (false) confession, Romeo had recanted his confession to another police officer. He had explained that he was innocent, but he and Neil were collaborating on a scheme to send the police "on a wild goose chase" and enable them to collect the reward money from Neil's report of his false confession.[12] Romeo has consistently maintained that he is innocent from this recantation until the present time.[13]

Romeo's lawyer, Arthur Cogan, also pointed out that the police had lost many pieces of evidence that should have been presented in the case, including a hair sample taken from Romeo and fingernail scrapings, blood and hair samples taken from Leopold. He asked the jury to "look very carefully at the lack of a proper police investigation in arriving at their verdict."[14]

Despite these troubling features of the evidence, the jury found Romeo guilty on November 7, 1972, and he was sentenced him to life in prison with no parole eligibility for ten years.[15]
Romeo's Unsuccessful Attempts to Appeal his Conviction
Romeo attempted to appeal his conviction to the Ontario Court of Appeal, arguing among other things that due to the many problems with the police investigation, he had been deprived of the presumption of innocence to which all accused persons are entitled. He was unsuccessful and the Court dismissed his appeal on September 3, 1974.[16]

Romeo subsequently sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. On March 22, 1977, this appeal was dismissed as well.[17] After this appeal had failed, Romeo began writing letters of the Minister of Justice, stating that he had been out of town at the time of Leopold's murder and asking that his case be reopened, but no action was taken.[18] Romeo would spend the next 31 years in prison for a crime he did not commit.[19]
A Miscarriage of Justice
More than 20 years later, in 1998, Romeo's case took a surprising turn. His parole officer gave him an envelope containing police reports from his Corrections Canada file. One of these documents was a police investigation report that had been prepared on April 12, 1968 by prepared by the investigating officer, Detective McCombie. This report appeared to provide Romeo with an alibi: it indicated that Detective McCombie had spoken to a Trenton service station operator who confirmed that Romeo had been in Trenton between 12 and 1 p.m. on August 9 - the day of Leopold's murder - "therefore making it impossible for him to return to Ottawa by 2:45 p.m. at the time the murder was committed."[20] This possible alibi had never been raised in Romeo's trial. In fact, his lawyer specifically stated at trial that there was "no issue" with the fact that Romeo had been in Ottawa at the time of Leopold's death.[21]

Finally, Romeo had compelling evidence with which he could get his case reopened. He sent Detective McCombie's report to the Innocence Project at Osgoode Hall Law School. On May 15, 2003, the Innocence Project and AIDWYC submitted a s. 696.1 application for ministerial review to determine whether Romeo's conviction was a miscarriage of justice.[22] Romeo was awarded bail while the Minister of Justice considered the application, bringing an end to his 31 years spent in prison. Although Romeo could have applied for parole much earlier, he had refused to do so because he felt that that applying for parole would be tantamount to admitting that he had killed Leopold. Romeo continued to insist that he was innocent.[23]

On August 2, 2006, the Minister of Justice ordered that the Ontario Court of Appeal reopen Romeo's case.[24] The judges heard evidence to determine why Detective McCombie's 1968 report giving Romeo a verified alibi for the time of the murder had never been disclosed to his lawyer.[25]

In its decision, the majority of the Court concluded that the Crown had not intentionally pursued their case against him knowing that he was innocent. The majority found that there was a great deal of confusion surrounding whether and when the police learned further information that discredited this alibi. Detective McCombie testified that after submitting the April 12, 1968 report, he had retrieved tow records of Romeo's car showing that he could actually have made it back to Ottawa in time to have killed Leopold.[26] However, there was no evidence to confirm that Detective McCombie had in fact made this trip and found evidence that discredited the alibi. Justice Moldaver stated in his decision that "the tow records ... and the occurrence report that Detective McCombie claims to have prepared upon his return from Trenton - if these items in fact existed and were deposited there - had gone missing from the [police] property room by January 1972 when ... [Romeo] was charged" with Leopold's murder.[27] Justice Moldaver did not conclude that Detective McCombie was lying, given his distinguished career and sterling professional reputation.[28] However, he found the complete lack of documentation confirming Detective McCombie's supposed trip to Trenton to be "disturbing," though perhaps not particularly surprising, given the numerous other exhibits that the police had lost and could not locate for Romeo's trial.[29]

Regardless of what exactly happened in the sloppy police investigation, it was perfectly clear that the Crown prosecutor had a copy of the April 1968 report, which was never disclosed to Mr. Cogan, Romeo's lawyer.[30] As a result, Mr. Cogan was unable to use the report - which, as noted by Justice Moldaver, "would have been gold in his hands" - to cross-examine the officers about Romeo's alibi.[31] Therefore if Mr. Cogan had known about the report, Romeo's trial would likely have gone very differently, and Romeo probably would not have spent the following three decades in prison.[32]

The Court of Appeal overturned Romeo's conviction and ordered a new trial.[33] However, the Crown withdrew the murder charge against Romeo on April 29, 2010, since there was no reasonable chance that the new trial would result in his conviction.[34] Coincidentally, April 29 is Romeo's birthday: his name was finally cleared on the day he turned 71. After the charges were withdrawn, he told reporters that he "got an apology from the judge, which was a gift" that he was "not expecting."[35] "I'm 71 years old today," he explained, "but I feel like I'm 21."[36]
The Causes of Romeo's Wrongful Conviction
Numerous factors contributed to Romeo's wrongful conviction. First, Romeo made a false confession that he had murdered Leopold, and though he recanted the confession soon afterward, the damage had already been done. At first it is very difficult to see why Romeo would have chosen to put himself in such danger. However, the Court of Appeal heard testimony given by Dr. Gudjonsson, the world's foremost expert on the psychology of false confessions, which sheds light on this baffling decision.[37] Dr. Gudjonsson explained that voluntary false confessions are actually common in high profile cases such as Leopold's unsolved murder case, and can be motivated by many factors, including:

(1) "a desire for notoriety," fueled by "a pathological need to be infamous or draw attention to himself"(as described by the experts who testified at Romeo's trial);

(2) "an unconscious need to expiate guilt over unrelated transgressions";

(3) "an inability to distinguish fact from fantasy" (indeed, Neil testified that Romeo was someone "who lived in ... a world of fantasy"[38]);

(4) a desire to aid and protect someone else, typically the real criminal" (Romeo's lawyer later suggested that his confession was a "desperate bid" to protect Neil from other charges)[39]; and/or

(5) "revenge - either on someone who the confessor also implicates or on the police whose time is wasted by the false admission."[40] As noted above, Romeo stated during his recantation that he "wanted to get even" with the police "and send them on a wild goose chase."[41]

Dr. Gudjonsson also stated that Romeo did indeed suffer from antisocial personality disorder, as well as borderline personality disorder, and that interaction of these two conditions might have led to his making the false confession.

Perhaps increased knowledge regarding these conditions and/or access to mental health services for Romeo prior to his false confession might therefore have prevented this tragic chain of events from coming about. Unfortunately, our society still struggles to appropriately address the needs of Canadians who suffer from mental illness, both within and outside of the justice system.[42]

Another factor contributing to Romeo's wrongful conviction was the fact that the police investigation was plagued with an incredible degree of disorganization. Police officers frequently lost evidence and failed to keep records of their investigations.[43] These organizational failures intersected with the Crown's failure to disclose the crucial April 1968 report containing Romeo's alibi to his lawyer. Unlike in 1972, Crown prosecutors are now required to disclose every relevant document to the defence, including information that the Crown does not plan to use in court but that could be important to the defence.[44]

Finally, it seems likely that the jury in Romeo's trial put too much emphasis on Mildred's eyewitness testimony. Many people believe that this type of testimony is very credible but in fact, witnesses make confident - and incorrect - eyewitness identifications at an alarmingly high rate, and these problems grow worse as the time interval increases between crime and trial.[45] In fact, of the Innocence Project's first 225 exonerations of wrongly convicted persons in the US, 77% of the convictions had been based on mistaken eyewitness identification.[46]
Wounds that AIDWYC Cannot Heal
Due to his refusal to seek parole and accept responsibility for a crime that he did not commit, Romeo was the longest-serving Canadian inmate to have a murder conviction overturned.[47]

Moreover, Romeo's attempts to secure some compensation for these lost three decades came to a dead end in May 2013, when Superior Court Justice Eva Frank dismissed his $14-million lawsuit against the Attorney General of Ontario and two of the police officers who had investigated his case.[48]

Although it is unfortunate that Romeo chose to make a false confession, it must be remembered that his mental health difficulties almost certainly played a role in this decision. Regardless of the wisdom or ethics of his making the false confession, he certainly did not deserve to spend thirty-one years of his life atoning for it. As Romeo explained to reporters when asked to explain why he had made the false confession, "it was all a bad joke that cost him his life."[49]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Author: Sarah Harland-Logan Introduction: The Unsolved Murder of Leopold Roy The story of Romeo's wrongful conviction began on August 9, 1967, when a firefighter named Leopold Roy was stabbed to death by an unknown assailant. His wife, Mildred, described the man to Ottawa Police officers, who then placed Romeo and his identical twin brother, Donald, in a police lineup.

# data[].attributes.body
In picture format, displays news clippings of Phillion and updates on his case.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Wrongfully Convicted of Murder Romeo Phillion spent 31 years in prison before being fully exhonerated. He sued the Ontario government, the Ottawa police force and two detectives that worked his case for $14 million. However He died before receiving any compensation

# data[].attributes.body
Romeo Phillion spent 31 years in prison for the murder of firefighter Leopold Roy. Leopold was stabbed to death in his apartment on August 9, 1967. Romeo falsely confessed to the murder after being promised that if he did so, he would be allowed to speak to his, at the time, boyfriend. This is relevant to the board because the article explains how and why Romeo was convicted for the murder, and why it took so long for them to realize he had been wrongfully convicted.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Romeo Phillion was the longest-serving prisoner in Canadian history to have a murder conviction overturned.

Romeo Phillion was convicted in 1972 for the murder of an Ottawa firefighter. More than three decades later, he became the longest-serving prisoner in Canadian history to have a murder conviction overturned. When authorities refused to retry him for the crime, Phillion was denied the chance to be found innocent at trial, and to potentially receive compensation for his wrongful imprisonment.

Early Years

Born in Cobalt, Ontario, on 29 April 1939, Phillion was the fourth of nine children. At the age of eight, his parents sent him to a training school for orphans and truants run by a Christian order. He was sexually abused and bullied.

Phillion grew into a shiftless drifter. He learned to live by his wits, lying and committing petty crimes to survive, and consorting with other two-bit criminals. He compiled a criminal record that included convictions for living off the avails of prostitution, theft and assault.

Leopold Roy Murder

On 9 August 1967, Ottawa firefighter Leopold Roy was stabbed to death in an apartment building where he was superintendent. With the help of a description supplied by Roy's wife, Mildred, police assembled a composite sketch of the killer. Days later, Phillion's sometime-girlfriend Gail Brazeau told police that he resembled the composite sketch.

After seeing him in a police lineup, Mildred Roy also stated that there was a resemblance between Phillion and the man who stabbed her husband. In his defence, Phillion proffered an alibi, saying that he had been several hours away from Ottawa that day, in New Liskeard, ON.

Police realized that the lineup evidence from Mildred Roy was insufficient to sustain a criminal charge. They also found Gail Brazeau to be simple-minded and untrustworthy. They released Phillion.

Confession and Trial

For years, investigators remained stymied. Then, on 11 January 1972, Phillion was picked up for questioning in connection with an armed robbery of a taxi driver. Phillion's 18-year-old boyfriend Neil Miller (Phillion was bisexual), was also brought in for questioning.

Phillion surprised the police by suddenly admitting to the Roy murder and agreeing to supply a full confession if he were permitted to see Neil Miller. Hours later, Phillion recanted his confession, but it was too late.

His trial started before a jury on 16 October 1972. The prosecution case revolved around his confession, Mildred Roy's testimony, and a claim by Miller that Phillion had privately confessed to him about the murder.

Phillion's defence lawyer attempted to cast doubt on his client's mental health. He also painted Phillion as someone who would say anything to make himself sound important - including confess to a murder.

The defence also contended that Phillion and Miller had concocted a plan in which Phillion would confess to the Roy murder in hopes of obtaining reward money. According to the plan, Miller was to corroborate the confession.

On 7 November 1972, the jury found Phillion guilty. He was sentenced to life in prison with no parole eligibility for 10 years. Before being led away, Phillion predicted to his trial judge that the sentence "will kill me." His subsequent legal appeals failed.

Imprisonment

Phillion was no less erratic behind bars than he had been on the street. In 1990, he walked away from a minimum-security prison in Kingston, ON, and attempted to rob a bank. Handed more than $2,000 by a teller, he caught a cab and returned to his prison, where he handed the money out to other inmates.

Phillion also attempted suicide several times in prison, once lowering a line with fishhooks down his throat and yanking it back up.

When he became eligible for parole, Phillion steadfastly refused to apply because he would not admit to killing Roy. He knew that without conceding guilt, it was highly unlikely that authorities would grant him parole.

McCombie Report

In 1998, a parole officer left a file in Phillion's cell in Kingston Penitentiary. It included a 1968 report written by Ottawa Police detective John McCombie that ruled out Phillion as a suspect in the Roy murder.

The report detailed how investigators had gone to a service station near Trenton, ON, in 1968 to determine whether Phillion was telling the truth about being on his way back to Ottawa from New Liskeard around the time Roy was murdered. The owner of the Trenton service station confirmed to police that Phillion had been there between noon and 1 p.m. that day. Since Trenton is 237 kilometres away from Ottawa, this made it impossible for Phillion to be the killer.

The police report quoted the service station owner saying that Phillion had left his car radio in lieu of paying for a tank of gas and some simple repairs, "therefore making it impossible for him to return to Ottawa by 2:45 p.m. at the time the murder was committed."

The report had not been disclosed previously to Phillion or his lawyer.

Proving His Innocence

Phillion began trying to raise interest in his case. In interviews with the media, he was adamant that he would one day prove his innocence. "They want you to sit there and feel remorse for something you didn't do," Phillion said in 2001. "I'm going to fight on. I'm innocent and they have no choice. I'll take any test they throw at me because I'm innocent."

Phillion conceded that his long-ago confession was a blot that would be difficult to erase. "I was so naive, so stupid," he said. "I kick my butt for what I did. I ruined my life, for a stupid thing."

Phillion stated that his primary motivation for making the false statement had been to ensure that Miller didn't get into trouble.

"Neil was very sensitive; a drag queen," he said. "Being locked up like that . . . he would die . . . It wasn't a confession. It was a false statement."

The Innocence Project and the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted (AIDWYC) adopted Phillion's case in the early 2000s. In 2003, they submitted a joint application to the federal minister of Justice for a review of Phillion's case using a Criminal Code provision that permits cases to be reopened when there is pertinent fresh evidence.

The two organizations had also unearthed new evidence showing that Phillion had made startling errors in his original police statements. For example, Phillion had taken investigators to a bridge where he had purportedly thrown his bloodied clothes into a river. However, upon learning that the location was inaccessible by car, he had changed his mind and taken them to a different bridge.

Court of Appeal Hearing

While the minister of Justice considered his application, Phillion was granted bail. In 2006, the minister decided that the fresh evidence raised serious questions about whether Phillion had been wrongly convicted. He ordered that a special hearing be held by the Ontario Court of Appeal to reconsider Phillion's case.

During the hearing, Detective McCombie testified to a panel of three judges that he had ultimately discovered other evidence that discredited Phillion's alibi. However, the court majority was skeptical of the claim and concluded that Phillion had not received a fair trial. They ordered a retrial.

Instead, on 29 April 2010, the Crown simply withdrew the charge against Phillion. Prosecutors said it would be futile to attempt to try the case again after so much time had passed. The Crown's decision left Phillion in legal limbo. Unconvicted - yet not shown to have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice - he was deprived of the possibility of obtaining financial compensation, outside of a civil lawsuit.

Supreme Court Ruling

A quiet and well-mannered man in his later years, Phillion never gave up his search for justice. He launched a lawsuit against police and the Crown in 2013. However, it was dismissed by an Ontario Superior Court judge.

Shortly before his death in late 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada disagreed with the lower court ruling and upheld Phillion's right to pursue the lawsuit. Nine months later, however, Phillion died of emphysema at the age of 76, leaving his lawsuit in legal limbo.

The Phillion case has come to stand for the unreliability of eyewitness evidence - such as Mildred Roy's police lineup identification. It is also regarded as proof that, as counterintuitive as the notion may seem, individuals do sometimes falsely confess to serious crimes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
association in defence of the wrongly convicted

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Romeo Phillion was the longest-serving prisoner in Canadian history to have a murder conviction overturned. Romeo Phillion was convicted in 1972 for the murder of an Ottawa firefighter. More than three decades later, he became the longest-serving prisoner in Canadian history to have a murder conviction overturned.