Ivan Henry’s Charter Argument

Lawyers for Henry—the BCCLA and David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights appearing as Intervenors—argued before the Supreme Court of Canada in November 2014 that malice on the part of the prosecutor – or any state actor – has no role to play in determining the availability of damages as a constitutional remedy.


Fingers crossed but, even if the SCC says no, Henry’s “malicious prosecution” argument has every likelihood—-if his lawyers amend their pleadings to add the prosecutor’s 1. introducing two fake lineup photos; and 2.substituion of exhibits at trial—-of succeeding.