Wilfred Truscott

Case Summary

On January 21, 1984, Wilfred Truscott was arrested on the charges of wilful damage (mischief), break and enter, and assault. Truscott, a Winnipeg, Manitoba man in his mid-twenties, learned that there was a Canada-wide warrant for his arrest. Six months earlier, a former girlfriend had made a complaint to police in Leduc, Alberta – located south of Edmonton, two provinces and some 1,300 kilometers away. She alleged that Truscott had broken into her trailer home and beaten her.1

Truscott awaited trial in an Edmonton remand centre for nearly a month. He maintained that he had witnesses who would attest that he was living in Winnipeg at the time of the alleged offence. It appears that the RCMP took no action to verify Truscott’s alibi.2 His Legal Aid lawyer advised him to adjourn his trial date until his alibi witnesses could be located, but regrettably, “there was some question as to whether Legal Aid would pay for this expense.”3 Frustrated that he had spent weeks in custody and “[a]nxious to get the matter over with as soon as possible,” Truscott chose to proceed to trial.4

At his trial, Truscott testified that it was not possible for him to have committed the alleged break-in and assault, since he was in Winnipeg at the relevant time. However, the trial judge accepted his ex-girlfriend’s evidence, finding her to be “a far more credible witness” than Truscott, who had a prior history of property and impaired driving offences.5 He was convicted and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, to be served at a prison camp in Fort McMurray, northern Alberta. So strongly did the trial judge believe in Truscott’s guilt, he suggested that the RCMP open a perjury investigation regarding his sworn evidence that he had been in Winnipeg.6

Truscott was transported to Fort McMurray and began serving his sentence. At one point he encountered another inmate who “didn’t like his looks” and threatened him with a knife. Corrections officers retrieved the knife and then placed Truscott, as well as his assailant, in solitary confinement.7

He tried to appeal his conviction, but at first was unable to do so because his legal aid application was denied, meaning that he could not access counsel.8 Fortunately for Truscott, his current girlfriend was able to retain a Winnipeg lawyer to assist with his appeal. The lawyer obtained affidavits from the girlfriend and Truscott’s employer; both swore that he was in Winnipeg at the time of the alleged break-in.9

Ultimately, police did uncover “overwhelming evidence of perjury” – on the part of Truscott’s ex-girlfriend.10 It appeared that she had fabricated her account “to get back at her ex-boyfriend”, and then lied convincingly under oath at Truscott’s trial.11

With the Crown’s consent, Truscott was released on bail pending appeal in September 1984, by which time he had spent nine months in prison. In October 1984, the Alberta Court of Appeal overturned Truscott’s conviction.12

Preemptively, Neil Crawford, then the Alberta Attorney-General, “publicly declined any government responsibility” for Truscott’s wrongful conviction (he had not yet sought compensation).13 Crawford suggested that Truscott, who was at that point an out-of-work labourer, commence civil litigation against his accuser if he wished to seek redress.14 Simply put, this course of action was not possible for Truscott, who had relied on Legal Aid for representation at his trial. Moreover, even if he were able to successfully sue his accuser, it was far from clear that she would have the financial resources to compensate him.15

In addition, as The Globe and Mail reported at the time:

There may be some shared blame in this state of affairs, but the Alberta Government is not          having any of it. The Crown has brought perjury charges against the ex-girlfriend; the Mounties are conducting an internal investigation of their own handling of the matter with the results to be forwarded, confidentially, to the Attorney-General in about two weeks.16

No public record was discovered as to the outcome of the RCMP internal investigation. Truscott’s ex-girlfriend, however, was tried and convicted of perjury. In April 1986, she was sentenced to two years’ incarceration.17

The following month, the Alberta government changed its position in regards to compensation. Truscott accepted Crawford’s offer of $36,000 for his wrongful conviction and imprisonment.18


[1] Robert Sheppard, “ALBERTA Conveyor belt justice hits again” (16 October 1984), The Globe and Mail: P.8 [Sheppard]; Tom Barrett, “Liars sometimes more credible on the stand than the innocent” (11 December 1993), Edmonton Journal: F1 [Barrett]; Canadian Press, “Alberta ready to compensate man wrongly jailed 17 months” (4 March 1986), Toronto Star: A8 [Canadian Press]; Richard Helm, “Wrongly jailed man can't shake bitterness” (15 January 1994), Edmonton Journal: A10 [Helm].
[2] Sheppard, supra note 1.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Helm, supra note 1; Barrett, supra note 1.
[6] Sheppard, supra note 1; Barrett, supra note 1.
[7] Helm, supra note 1; Barrett, supra note 1.
[8] Sheppard, supra note 1.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Barrett, supra note 1. 
[11] Ibid.
[12] Canadian Press, supra note 1; Sheppard, supra note 1. 
[13] Sheppard, supra note 1. 
[14] Ibid. 
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Canadian Press, supra note 1.
[18] Ibid.; Canadian Press, “$36,000 accepted” (7 March 1986), The Gazette: B1.

 

 

Case Details

  • Full name:

    Wilfred Truscott

  • Gender identity:

    Male

  • Race/ethnicity:

    Unknown

  • Age - at the time of conviction:

    25

  • Charges - specific offences:

    Break and enter; Assault; Willful damage

  • Date of conviction:

    1984-02

  • Date wrongful conviction was overturned:

    1984-10

  • Sentence - total time served:

    00 years, 09 months, 00 days

  • Legal mechanism by which wrongful conviction was overturned:

    New evidence on first appeal

  • Status of alleged crime:

    No Crime Occurred

  • Compensation Received?

    Yes

  • Guilty plea?

    No

  • Cause(s) of wrongful conviction:

    Truscott was convicted of break and enter, assault, and wilful damage to property based on perjured testimony from his ex-girlfriend. There was no investigation into Truscott’s alibi: he was hundreds of kilometres away at the time of the alleged offence, as his employer and partner would later attest.