The Canadian Press
HALIFAX — Nova Scotia's Justice Department has rejected a suggestion from Ernest Fenwick MacIntosh that two of the men who accused him of sexual abuse in Cape Breton in the 1970s should face perjury charges because their testimony at his trial lacked credibility.
© Cape Breton Post file photo
Ernest Fenwick (Fen) MacIntosh walked out of the Sydney Justice Centre, after being released on bail in April 2008, in this Cape Breton Post file photo. His application for a stay in 36 sex charges has been denied.
As reported Wednesday, MacIntosh wrote to provincial Justice Minister Ross Landry on May 25 saying that he has always maintained his innocence. At trial, he testified that he had no sexual contact with some of the complainants and had consensual relations with others when they were above the age of consent.
In the letter, MacIntosh singles out two complainants, who can only be identified as DRS and JH, saying he believes they should be charged with perjury, with misleading a police investigation, with mischief and with any other relevant charges.
Tara Walsh, a spokeswoman for Landry, issued a statement on Wednesday saying the department had received MacIntosh’s letter, but it wasn’t about to take any action.
“We respect the victims and will support them during this time, as government has tried to do throughout this horrible situation,” Walsh said.
She said Landry issued a statement in July, which said the outcome of the case was “heartbreaking,” and that the people who came forward to testify “did not get the justice they deserve.”
MacIntosh's convictions on 17 counts of sexually abusing multiple young males were quashed by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, which found it took too long for the Crown to bring him to trial.
He was first charged in 1995 and was convicted 15 years later at two trials. He had been extradited from India to stand trial in 2007. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the staying of the charges based on delay.
The appeal court seriously questioned the credibility and collusion of the complainants which the trial judge had ignored' and stayed all of the charges, MacIntosh wrote to Landry.
MacIntosh wrote he has read media reports suggesting Landry's department may initiate an inquiry looking into what caused delays in the matter going to trial.
"I would welcome an inquiry, but I would expect any inquiry to focus on all aspects of the case, particularly the collusion among the complainants, the blatant misrepresentation of the truth by the complainants, the deliberate lying by at least two of the complainants and the sloppy misrepresentation of evidence by the trial judge, as well as delay issues," MacIntosh wrote.