Click Here for More.
Crown defends decision not to call Doucet’s husband to testify
January 25, 2013 – 4:17am By The Canadian Press
Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on linkedinMore Sharing Services
Michael Ryan,
The Crown is standing by its decision not to call Michael Ryan to testify in the case involving his ex-wife Nicole Doucet Ryan trying to hire a hit man to kill him. (THE CANADIAN PRESS)
The Crown attorney in the case of a woman who tried to have her husband killed by a hitman says he stands by his decision not to call the intended victim to counter her claims of abuse.
Senior Crown attorney Peter Craig said after reviewing evidence at trial he determined Michael Ryan’s evidence wasn’t necessary to refute the duress defence of his ex-wife Nicole (Ryan) Doucet, and that he still believes the Crown presented enough evidence to overcome it.
Last week, the Supreme Court of Canada ordered a stay of proceedings against Doucet, essentially leaving her free. At the same time, the court granted the Crown’s appeal and overturned the acquittal verdict that was reached in 2010.
Craig said Thursday the Supreme Court’s decision to grant a stay is unusual and something that will be debated.
“It’s unprecedented in terms of ever having been done before,” he said in an interview. “I think there will be lots of discussion both academically and among reasonably informed members of the public about this decision.”
The Supreme Court says Michael Ryan conducted a “reign of terror” against his ex-wife, basing its conclusions about him on the findings of fact made by the trial judge, who accepted Doucet’s testimony “without question,” as the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal noted.
In an interview this week, Michael Ryan denied he was abusive and questions why the Crown never gave him a chance to tell his side of the story during the original trial in Digby..
Craig said he had other considerations to make when he prosecuted the case.
“I can understand why Michael Ryan would feel he’s never had the opportunity to advance his side of the story, so to speak, but that’s not what the Crown looks at when determining whether to call a witness in a criminal case,” he said.
“We’re governed by calling evidence to support the legal issues that are raised in the case. I’m not Michael Ryan’s lawyer. I determined after reviewing the evidence at trial that his evidence wasn’t necessary to refute the duress defence raised by Mrs. Ryan (Doucet).”
Doucet’s lawyer, Joel Pink, has said he has no doubt his client is telling the truth.
Craig said he remains convinced the Crown presented enough evidence to overcome Doucet’s duress defence.
The court record shows, he added, that Doucet admitted to committing the offence.
Craig said the agreed statement of facts included a DVD with audio and video of Doucet meeting with an undercover RCMP officer and hiring the hitman to kill her husband.
“I think most people can appreciate that the frequency of that happening … is extremely rare in our world,” he said.
In its decision, the Supreme Court agreed with the Crown that the duress defence wasn’t sufficient to acquit Doucet.
Michael Ryan says he sat in the court parking lot during the week of the trial, waiting to refute what his ex-wife was saying at the trial. He wanted to tell the judge that Doucet was under no duress from him, that they were living apart and he was in a new relationship.
He had been subpoenaed. He was on the witness list so he arrived at the courthouse on the first day of her trial, but could not sit in the courtroom due to a standard witness exclusion order.