Closing submissions heard
Judge expected to rule July 7 in Stanley Tippett jailhouse obstruction of justice case
COBOURG – Lawyers voiced opposing views on how a judge should assess a key witness and his evidence as they made closing submissions in Stanley Tippett’s obstruction of justice retrial Wednesday in Cobourg Superior Court of Justice.
Morgan Gentle, a fellow inmate at Lindsay’s Central East Correctional Centre who came forward with letters from Tippett offering him money to lie to help his appeal, was not reliable or credible and should not have been allowed to testify, defence lawyer Lydia Riva argued.
While acknowledging the Crown wasn’t about to argue that Gentle is a “great guy,” his lengthy criminal record does include violent offences, but no crimes of dishonesty, Crown attorney Mark Moorecroft submitted in response.
The trial, which began in Cobourg Feb. 13 before Justice Drew Gunsolus, heard its final evidence – from an expert defence witness – Tuesday afternoon. The judge is expected to reveal his decisions when the matter returns to court July 7 at 11 a.m. in Lindsay.
Tippett, 40, was convicted of kidnapping and sexually assaulting an intoxicated 12-year-old Peterborough girl in 2009. He took her to an area behind a Courtice high school after picking her up on a south-end street in August 2008.
He received an indefinite jail sentence after being designated a dangerous offender in 2011.
In her 45-minutes of closing statements, Riva argued that Tippett should be found not guilty because of Gentle’s lack of credibility and reliability, as well as his motive to fabricate the allegations because he stood to possibly benefit from doing so.
“It is so problematic to rely on the word of a jailhouse informant,” she said.
Later, Moorecroft responded by asserting that Gentle is “absolutely not a jailhouse informant,” submitting that he does not meet the legal criteria required to be one. Those who allegedly have direct knowledge of the offence are excluded from the label. “That’s exactly what Mr. Gentle is … he is the only person in the world with that first-hand knowledge.”
Gentle was in custody then on a serious sexual assault charge, among others, and was expecting a sentence of four to five years – but got two years, Riva said, noting his statements to police. He was reluctant to admit that on the stand and as a result, was evasive, she said.
Later, Moorecroft responded to that point by saying the four to five years Gentle faced were one of several ranges possible.
Someone with a lengthy criminal record who is in custody on a serious charge would have a perception that they could benefit, whether they actually stood to or not, Riva argued.
Pointing to a Feb. 15, 2011 interview between Gentle and city police Det. Const. Scott Rogers, Riva noted how Gentle told the officer he didn’t expect his charges to be dropped, but that he would like the Crown to note certain mitigating factors about his case.
“They are clearly talking about what Mr. Gentle is going to receive as a result of this statement,” she said, noting that Rogers told Gentle he would speak to the Crown.
Moorecroft later responded by saying there was no reduction to Gentle’s charges, that he testified in a believable way and was not expecting any kind of deal. He didn’t didn’t ask for one and one wasn’t offered, he said.
Rogers testified that after they met, Gentle never contacted him to ask about a deal or any followthrough with the Crown. That’s important, the prosecutor said, because it shows he didn’t believe he would be getting any personal advantage for coming forward.
Riva also voiced points she said diminish Gentle’s reliability and credibility, including what she called a history of taking drastic measures to avoid incarceration.
For example, he reluctantly admitted on the stand that he was trying to avoid a 15-day jail sentence by fleeing to Alberta for a year.
The key witness also contradictory with the statement he provided police and what he stated during the trial, Riva submitted.
On video, he told police he didn’t commit sexual assault, calling that a “ridiculous” thing to say, yet he then pleaded guilty to the offence. “He was either lying to officer Rogers … or he lied to the court when he pleaded guilty to it.”
Also, his criminal record includes 30 convictions, she noted. “This is somebody who is always in the criminal justice system.”
The lawyers also presented arguments Wednesday for and against an application to stay the charge as a result of the loss of the original letters.
The Crown has not established that reasonable steps were taken to retrieve the lost letters, nor has the prosecution proven they weren’t lost due to unacceptable negligence, Riva argued.
The trial exhibits should have been preserved for a potential appeal, but his first trial wasn’t even even completed, she said. “We don’t know if reasonable steps were indeed taken … the justice system would collapse if this became a regular occurrence.”
Moorecroft later responded by saying there is no evidence of unacceptable negligence or misconduct by court services, pointing out that court heard testimony that it was the first time a veteran court officer had seen such a thing happen in many years.
The loss of the letters prejudiced the defence for several reasons, Riva said. For example, it lost the ability to cross-examine a witness because further testing couldn’t be done without those original letters, she argued.
Moorecroft later responded to that by saying that particular witness said she would only need the original letters if there was a possibility of simulation. He argued there is no evidence to prove Gentle had any writing samples to copy from to simulate Tippett’s writing.
If the judge agrees there is no possibility of simulation, then there is no basis for the stay application and it must be dismissed, he said, later adding that it would be a miscarriage of justice to stay the charge when all of the evidence is considered.
The prosecutor also pointed out that there is no irreparable prejudice resulting from the loss of the letters if there is an alternate source of information available – such as the photocopies of them that have been used in this case.
During his nearly 2 1/2 hours of closing submissions, Moorecroft pointed out that there is no dispute that if Gunsolus believes Tippett gave the letters to Gentle, the content of the letters constitutes an obstruction of justice.
The trial turns on whether or not he is the author and few people could have written the letters, based on their content, Moorecroft said.
Gentle is not one of those people, but Tippett clearly is, he said, before spending considerable time on what he called the most important proof that the letters were not fabricated – the information they contained others wouldn’t have known.
The letters included an “incredible amount of detail” from Tippett’s 2009 trial before Justice Bruce Glass, like the names of witnesses – some whose identity was even protected by a publication ban – and specifics such as home addresses.
They also contained information about Tippett’s life, such as how many children he has and with whom, who he was married to and had other relationships with, Moore explained, referring the judge to passages from trial transcripts to show the duality.
There were also exact details about what Tippett did on the day of the abduction.
“It had to be him that did it,” Moorecroft said before referencing what he called the “most stark” example: the letter writer referencing the exact time Tippett talked to his wife after midnight that night, just like he testified at the trial. “That one is just too incredible for any other explanation.”
The author wrote the same details over and over again, “overlapping them,” he added. ”The only reasonable conclusion is that it was Mr. Tippett that wrote the letters.”
Moorecroft also noted that city police forensic identification officer Det. Const. Jake Friesen found Tippett’s fingerprints on each of the five double-sided pages of letters.
The July 7 return date could be subject to change as a result of a murder trial is scheduled to part of at about that time.… and the lawyers were discussing potential dates as far away as next September or October.