Crown, not police, should have given Driskell new info: Ewatski

It was up to Crown prosecutors, not the police, to tellJames Driskell aboutany new information related to his murder conviction, Winnipeg's police chief toldan inquiry intothe man's wrongful conviction.

"Our role is to gather the evidence and give it to the Crown," Jack Ewatski testified Thursday.

Ewatski was one of five police officers involved in a review of the case in 1993, butinformation they discovered about amajor witness, including that he'd lied on the stand,wasn't shared with Driskell or his lawyers for a decade.

One of those lawyers, Greg Brodsky,told the inquiry earlier this week that he had made repeated requests to Crown prosecutors for the information, and was repeatedly told he had everything he needed.

"The failure to release the contents of this report back in 1993 means he spent more than 10 years unnecessarily in prison,"James Lockyer, representingDriskellat the inquiry, saidThursday.

Driskell spent 12 years behind bars for the1990 murder of Perry Dean Harder before the federal justice minister quashed his conviction in 2005. The inquiry, which began July 17, has been exploring the conduct of the Crown and police in the treatment of witness Ray Zanidean.

In the 1993 review,Ewatski, then aWinnipeg police inspector, and four colleaguesconcluded that the investigation was conducted within acceptable police standards. Butthey alsolearnedthat Zanidean had lied on the stand and that RCMP and Winnipeg police could not agree on the facts surrounding a secret deal to give Zanidean immunity for an arson he was implicated in in Saskatchewan.

The inquiry had earlier heard that Zanidean demanded and received tens of thousands of dollars and other perks in exchange for his testimony, while threatening to change his story or recant altogether.

Police miscommunication source of embarrassment

In the report, Ewatski wrote the miscommunication between the two police forces would probably be a serious source of embarrassment if it ever became public.

The review was notshared with Driskell or his lawyers until 2003.

As Ewatski sat on the standThursday, Lockyer read from the review and said Ewatski seemed skeptical about Driskell's claims of innocence.

"You talk of Mr. Driskell trying to bring his plight to the public,'" he said. "He is soliciting public sentiment and searching for the same considerations obtained by David Milgaard in a wave of public emotion. Right?"

"Yes, sir," Ewatski replied.

"You don't think that's a rather cynical, skeptical view of the whole thing?" Lockyer asked.

"Those are our observations as a result of the entire, our entire involvement of this matter, sir," Ewatski testified.

Lockyer then asked Ewatski why he never told Driskell or his lawyers aboutinformation he had learned during the review, such as how Zanidean was offered an immunity deal and was eventually given tens of thousands of dollars in exchange for his testimony.

Ewatski responded by saying that was up to the Crown, not police. "We formed the opinion, we took the position that the information relative to the matter of immunity or no immunity, or deals or no deals, was certainly well known by the Crown."

In 2005, the federal justice minister cited several reasons for his decision to quash the conviction, including new DNA evidence that showed hairs found in Driskell's van did not belong to the victim as the Crown argued at trial as well as problems with key witnesses and a lack of disclosure of information that could have helped Driskell's defence.

The Manitoba governmentstayed the charges against Driskell, which keeps him out of prison but does not officially exonerate him.

The inquiry is probing the role of police, the actions of the Crown and questions of disclosure in the case. The commissioner has also been asked to determine when someone has met the threshold to be declared factually innocent or wrongly convicted.