The Criminal Justice Branch of the B.C. Ministry of Attorney-General has announced that Vancouver lawyer Leonard Doust will now review the conviction as an independent special prosecutor.

Doust told The Province he will conduct a thorough examination of not only the evidence that led to Henry's conviction, but also evidence in the case or cases of another as yet unidentified individual.

The review may include the gathering of additional evidence and interviewing of witnesses who testified, or not, at Henry's criminal trial, he said.

Doust may also seek out the women Henry was convicted of raping and sexually assaulting between May 1981 and June 1982 in Vancouver's Mount Pleasant neighbourhood.

"My role," Doust said, "is to review everything. Whatever it takes, I have to review the whole thing."

"His case has never been reviewed by an appeal court . . . [Henry] has maintained his innocence all the way through," Doust said.

The review is expected to take several months to complete.

Criminal justice spokesman Stan Lowe said in a release that special prosecutors are appointed "when there is significant potential for real or perceived improper influence in the administration of justice."

The review will determine "if there has been a potential miscarriage of justice," Lowe said.

Ivan William Mervin Henry was an unemployed East Vancouver resident when he was arrested in July of 1982 and charged with three counts of rape, two counts of attempted rape and five of indecent assault.

At his trial, Crown prosecutors argued that Henry broke in to ground-floor and basement suites and forced a total of eight women to perform sex acts. Prosecutor Mike Luchenko told the court Henry tried to humiliate his victims to the point where they would be too ashamed to notify police.

In delivering the verdict and deeming Henry a dangerous offender, Justice John Bouck noted he showed "no particular remorse or concern.

"He seems incapable of comprehending the nature of his actions. Instead, he takes refuge in condemning the judicial system for his predicament.

"Society must be permanently protected from the predatory behaviour of Henry," Bouck concluded.

Henry refused all legal assistance and defended himself during the court proceedings.

It was a decision that both the judge and reporters noted did little for the mental well-being of the victims he cross-examined -- or for his case.

The Crown did not call any medical evidence and Henry failed to convince the judge that the court should provide the names of the doctors who examined the complainants. As B.C. Court of Appeal judges would later note, "[Henry] did not pursue his appeal from conviction and therefore abandoned the opportunity to say that the trial judge erred."

From jail, Henry began a barrage of legal filings, all of which have been dismissed.

In 2003, the B.C. Court of Appeal dismissed Henry's appeal of a previous ruling that he not have access to medical evidence and proof of blood type found during the medical examination of victims.

Finally, in a peculiar Catch-22, the fact that Henry insists he is innocent means he has been not able to take part in sexual-offender rehabilitation programs while in custody.

mramsey@png.canwest.com

© The Vancouver Province 2006