A successful Cape Breton businessman, MacIntosh was transferred by his employer to Singapore and then to India in 1994 where he remained until his extradition back to Canada in 2007 to face numerous counts of indecent assault and gross indecency charges stemming from allegations made by six young men in 1995.
When MacIntosh left Canada in 1994 there were no charges against him and he had no idea that charges may be laid. Over the years he travelled between India and Canada, renewing his Canadian passport from time to time as required by Canadian law.
He was not hiding from the law. Canadian authorities knew where he lived in New Delhi and had his phone number. Coincidentally, one of his neighbours was an RCMP officer who worked as a liaison in India.
MacIntosh finally became aware of two criminal charges in 1997 but was led to believe by Canada Passport authorities that the charges were not proceeding. He heard nothing more until nine years later, despite the fact that in 2001 fifteen more charges were brought against him and he renewed his passport in 2002. The Crown acknowledged their decision to extradite Mr. MacIntosh in 1997 but as you will read, did nothing about it for nine years.
In 2006 the Crown filed extradition proceedings in India, some 11 years after the first charges were laid and five years after the second group of charges were filed against him.
Mr. MacIntosh was brought back to Canada in June 2007 but did not receive complete mandatory disclosure from the Crown until eleven months later, an astonishing delay considering that the Crown had readied their cases years before.
He finally went to trial in July 2010 and was convicted on several of the charges. However, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal overturned the convictions based on the 14 year delay of the Crown in proceeding against MacIntosh. But that wasn’t the only problem with the convictions.
The trial judge had so badly confused the evidence, even mixing up the witnesses and attributing evidence to one witness that was derived from another, that the Appeal Court determined that even absent the extraordinary delay, the judge’s errors would be cause for a new trial.
A key issue at the trial was centred on statements made by an alleged victim in 1995 and again in 2000 concerning details of the abuse he suffered, that simply could not be reconciled.
The trial judge acknowledged the discrepancies and based on the victim’s evidence and the testimony of another witness, determined that the assault did not take place at all. Yet despite this finding, the judge did not turn his attention to the issue of the victim’s overall credibility.
The finding that the alleged abuse did not occur as described, or at all, points to a flaw in the Crown’s preparation of their witness. In cases where a witness signs a comprehensive statement which he radically amends five years later, it is incumbent upon the Crown to test the evidence of the witness to ensure its reliability. Under cross-examination, this witness agreed that the event did not occur.
That the Supreme Court of Canada denied the Crown’s appeal in an oral judgment from the bench speaks to the Crown’s flimsy case. After all, an accused is not obliged to turn himself into the police or give a statement. It is the Crown’s job to bring an accused to trial.
Most notably, the Crown was unable to provide any rationale for their delay in prosecuting this case and cries for a public inquiry may well be revived now that our highest court has spoken.
Has an injustice occurred? Perhaps, but the fault lies with those paid to bring criminals to trial.