# data[].attributes.body
Summary: This article give a through account of the case of Leighton Hay, who was falsely found guilty of a July 2002 execution-style murder that took place in Scarborough, Ontario . It describes what happened before Hay was arrested, what was shown at his trial, and what happened in the court cases that followed, including forensics tests and appeals. The article concludes with Hay's acquittal highlighted by forensic specialists who concluded that hair clippings from his home were mostly of his facial hair, defying the prosecution's belief that he shaved his head to change his look following the shooting. Hay was freed from jail after serving more than 12 years when the accusation against him were dropped.

Relevance: The articles through account of the circumstances leading to Hay's wrongful conviction and subsequent exoneration make it pertinent to the case. It emphasizes the value of depending only on eyewitness accounts. It also further highlights that advocacy groups such as the Association of Defence of the Wrongfully Convicted, now know as Innocence Canada, provided to those who have been unfairly convicted. Hay's story is a reminder of the shortcomings in the legal system and the necessity for careful investigation and impartial trail practices to avoid injustices, as well as the effect of false convictions on people's lives. Focusing on Leighton Hay's decline in mental health.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the aftermath of the shooting, the nightclub's owner observed Eunick fleeing the premises in a green Honda. He wrote down the licence plate, which enabled police to retrieve the vehicle's registration: the Honda belonged to Leighton Hay's mother. 19-year-old Leighton and his sister, who was Eunick's girlfriend, lived at home with their mother. Police commenced surveillance at the Hay residence and found the green Honda parked in the driveway. Meanwhile, other officers showed photo line-ups to a number of eyewitnesses at the police station.

It quickly became apparent that Eunick was one of the shooters. Several witnesses identified him as the man with the semi-automatic handgun. Police went on to retrieve an "overwhelming" amount of physical evidence connecting Eunick to the crime, notably including a "distinctive orange vest" found with his "blood and gunshot granules on it" that witnesses recalled him wearing at the nightclub.

On May 29, 2004, after a six-week trial, the jury found both Hay and Eunick guilty on all charges. Each man was sentenced to life imprisonment with no possibility of parole for 25 years.

With the assistance of counsel from wrongful

Hay's counsel applied to the Supreme Court for an order that the hairs be released for forensic testing.While awaiting the court's decision, Hay's trial lawyer told reporters that "I have all along believed and still believe that Leighton Hay is totally innocent of these charges. . . . To me, it is critical that when science develops, we can get a closer look at what the Crown relied on." In November 2010, the Supreme Court granted Hay's request, finding that it was in the interests of justice for the hairs to be forensically tested, and ordered the Crown to provide them to the Centre of Forensic Sciences.

The Supreme Court granted Hay's application for leave to appeal in July 2012. Hay's counsel proffered fresh evidence from two forensic experts, who determined that the hair clippings were predominantly to exclusively "comprised of facial hairs" rather than scalp hairs. In other words, the clippings had come from Hay's beard, discrediting the Crown's theory that he had shaved his head after the shooting. The Crown also obtained opinions from two forensic experts, who agreed that "there was, as a scientific matter, no evidence to support the proposition that the hair clippings represented a head shave."

In November 2013, the Supreme Court quashed Hay's conviction and ordered a new trial. One year later, on November 28, 2014, the Crown withdrew the charges against Hay rather than prosecute him a second time.Hay, who has schizophrenia, had spent most of his 12 ½ years in prison on the psychiatric wing of two different institutions. His mental health greatly deteriorated during his incarceration.

The presiding judge, Justice John McMahon, addressed Hay after the Crown withdrew the charges: "Nothing I can say will bring back the 12 years that Mr. Hay has been in custody. . . . I apologize for the fact that it has taken this long for the justice system to get it right."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hay was wrongfully convicted of first degree and attempted murder after an eyewitness tentatively identified him from a simultaneous, non-blinded photo line-up.

# data[].attributes.headline
Leighton Hay v. Her Majesty the Queen- Trial- Supreme Court Hearings

# data[].attributes.subject
Leighton Hay v. Her Majesty the Queen- Trial- Supreme Court Hearings

# data[].attributes.body
Summary: This video consists of the trial for Leighton Hay. Based on the identification of him by an eyewitness and circumstantial evidence, Leighton was charged. Throughout the trial, the crown maintained that Hay was the second gunman based on circumstantial evidence. The use of eyewitness identification as proof is under question.

Relevance: This is relevant to the case since it summarizes the main points of Leighton Hay's trial, emphasizing how the prosecution charged him with the crime using circumstantial evidence and eyewitness identification. It emphasizes how crucial it is to cast doubt on eyewitness evidence, particularly when it serves as the main justification for a conviction, it draws attention to possible weaknesses in the criminal justice system by casting doubt on the reliability of this kind of evidence and scrutinizing the correctness and fairness of the trial processes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Leighton Hay v. Her Majesty the Queen (April 23, 2013) Case # 33536 Collin Moore was murdered and Roger Moore was wounded when two gunmen opened fire on them in a Toronto nightclub. The appellant was accused as one of the shooters based on an eyewitness' identification of him and circumstantial evidence.

# data[].attributes.headline
R. v. HayCollection- Supreme Court Judgments

# data[].attributes.subject
R. v. HayCollection- Supreme Court Judgments

# data[].attributes.body
Summary: Leighton Hay was found guilty of first-degree murder and attempted murder in relation to a nightclub shooting in Toronto in 2002. A single eyewitness, Ms.Maillard, identified Hay as one of the shooters. The physical evidence which includes bullets, a white T-shirt with gunshot residue, and hair clippings were discovered in his home were main components of the Crown's case. Hay appealed his conviction, claiming new information about their hair clippings necessitated a new trial and that the judge's direction to the jury were incorrect.

Relevance: The article describes the trial process, the motion to introduce new evidence, the objections to the convictions, and how the newly given evidence eventually led to the decision for a new trial. The case serves as a reminder of the difficulties and nuances involved in using physical evidence and eyewitness testimony. The fairness and integrity of the criminal justice system may be significantly impacted by the appeal's decision.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This page contains a form to search the Supreme Court of Canada case information database. You can search by the SCC 5-digit case number, by name or word in the style of cause, or by file number from the appeal court.

# data[].attributes.headline
Timeline and Key dates in the case of Leighton Hay 

# data[].attributes.subject
Timeline and Key dates in the case of Leighton Hay 

# data[].attributes.body
Summary: In this story of Leighton Hay, a Mississauga resident served 12.5 years in jail for a crime that forensic evidence he did not commit. Hay was defended by the AIDWYC. On November 28th, 2014, all allegations against Hay were withdrawn, and the Supreme Court of Canada granted him a fresh trial.

Relevance: The article is pertinent to the case since it details Leighton Hay's legal struggle after he was falsy convicted of murder, and the timeline of his journey. And how important it is for people to stand out for those who have been unfairly condemned and pursue justice via the judicial system.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Leighton Hay, 31, of Mississauga has been living a nightmare for the past 12-and-a-half years, since he was sent to maximum-security prison for a murder that forensic testing suggests he did not commit.

Much of Hay's time since 2002 has been spent in a prison psychiatric unit in Kingston, where he's treated with anti-depressant medication.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Wrongful conviction: Key dates in the legal nightmare of Leighton Hay of Mississauga

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Leighton Hay of Mississauga spent the past 12 ½ years in prison for murder. On Friday, the crown dropped all charges against him. His case is one of three victories this week for the Toronto-based Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted

# data[].attributes.headline
12 years later- The Release of Leighton Hay

# data[].attributes.subject
12 years later- The Release of Leighton Hay

# data[].attributes.body
Summary: Leighton Hay served more than 12 years in jail due to being convicted of murder in 2002. Years later forensic examination showed that the hairs discovered at Hay house that was used as evidence, were really facial hairs rather than hair from a haircut. Following legal disputes, charges were dropped and the judge expressed regret for the judicial system's inability to correct the error sooner.

Relevance: This video focuses on several important moments, including the faulty evidence, and dropping the charges once forensics established Hay's innocence. As well as how his life was affected by the false convictions, including his issues with mental health and his uncertain future. All in all, it gives a succinct synopsis of the case and highlights how critical it is to correct erroneous convictions and guarantee that justice is done.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Wrongfully convicted Leighton Hay is now free

# data[].attributes.headline
The lawyer of Leighton Hay speaks on the case

# data[].attributes.subject
The lawyer of Leighton Hay speaks on the case

# data[].attributes.body
Summary: James Lockyer, senior attorney for the Association in Defence of the wrongfully convicted, is interviewed in this video about Leighton Hay's release. Lockyer acknowledged Hay's liberation and notes the difficulties he encountered.

Relevance: The video reviews the elements that led to Hay's erroneous conviction and eventual release. Lockyer's remarks emphasized the shortcoming of the justice system.

# data[].attributes.headline
The timeline of the difficult battle towards freedom

# data[].attributes.subject
The timeline of the difficult battle towards freedom

# data[].attributes.headline
Review on the case of Leighton Hay- Assignment 2, Pt. 2

# data[].attributes.subject
Review on the case of Leighton Hay- Assignment 2, Pt. 2

# data[].attributes.body
Attached is my review on the case.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Review on the case Leighton Hay- Assignment 2 GNED 1307- Chloe C