Case Summary
Allan Woodhouse was in his teens when he left his home in Pinaymootang First Nation (formerly known as Fairford), over 200 kilometres northwest of Winnipeg, and moved to the city for work. English was his second language.1
In the summer of 1973, 40-year-old restaurant worker and father of two Ting Fong Chan was found beaten and stabbed to death in Winnipeg. One witness recalled having seen several men with long hair near the scene. A detective described the killing as “a bloody murder, a very vicious murder.”2
Within days, the Winnipeg Police Service had focused on four young suspects—all Indigenous men: Allan Woodhouse, then only 17 years old; Brian Anderson, 18; Allan’s brother Clarence Woodhouse, 21; and his brother Russell Woodhouse, 19.3 Police soon arrested the four and obtained signed confessions from them. Subsequent evidence would suggest that the language used in these statements was too advanced to be attributed to the young men, none of whom spoke English as a first language, and that the phrasings used in the confessions did not match the men’s speech patterns.4
During Anderson’s police interview, the detectives untruthfully claimed that witnesses had placed him at the crime scene and that the Woodhouse brothers had already confessed and implicated him in the killing.5 Anderson, who did not have a lawyer or interpreter present and spoke limited English, signed a confession. He later stated that he had been led to believe he was only signing a form to get back the property taken from him when he was arrested.6
The three Woodhouse brothers likewise signed written confessions provided by police. Allan Woodhouse, who has always maintained his innocence, told the officers that he had been sleeping at home on the night that Chan was killed, and that other people living there could confirm his whereabouts. The police took no steps to investigate his alibi.7 Instead, Woodhouse would repeatedly assert, they assaulted him in order to elicit a “false confession . . . [that] was beaten out of me by the police.”8
Ultimately, the account of all four co-accused persons was that they were threatened and assaulted by officers prior to signing their purported confessions.9 By 1978, the detectives who took Anderson’s confession had been accused of police brutality in another case.10 Decades later, the Crown would confirm that “the same Winnipeg police detective squad that obtained the confessions had [since] been accused of using violence and intimidation to produce manufactured statements in similar cases.”11
At their trial, which was held in English, the four young men had to testify without interpreters.12 In addition, Anderson’s lawyer did not call his grandfather, whom he said could have supported his alibi.13 Since there was no physical evidence linking Woodhouse or his three co-accused to the murder, the prosecution’s case rested on their written confessions. Woodhouse, his brothers, and Anderson all denied making these statements. They challenged the admissibility of their confessions on the basis that they were involuntary because the men had been subjected to police threats and violence.14
However, the trial judge decided that the prosecutor, George Dangerfield—who was also the prosecutor in the wrongful convictions of Thomas Sophonow, Frank Ostrowski, James Driskell, and Kyle Unger, as well as the suspected wrongful conviction of Robert Sanderson—had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the confessions were obtained voluntarily.15 The trial judge reached this conclusion despite hearing evidence from a psychologist that Russell Woodhouse had a developmental disability that prevented him from speaking in sentences, casting doubt on his capacity to have given the confession attributed to him.16
In March 1974, after a 12-day trial, an all-white Winnipeg jury convicted Allan Woodhouse, Clarence Woodhouse, and Brian Anderson of second degree murder, and Russell Woodhouse of manslaughter.17 Woodhouse was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for 10 years.18
At one point in the proceedings, the trial judge stated that Canada was no longer “a jungle” because “[w]e are no longer taking land from wild people”—that is, Indigenous people such as the defendants.19 “This is our country,” he said.20
Following the trial, Dangerfield wrote a letter to the Winnipeg chief of police, praising the detectives “for the excellent way in which they gave their evidence in respect of the taking of the [written confessions]. Without the statements, this case would have been lost entirely.”21
In November 1974, the Manitoba Court of Appeal rejected appeals by the four men in a short seven-paragraph decision. It stated that the trial judge had properly required the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the confessions were voluntary.22 The court also stressed that the jurors were free to reject the confessions as involuntary or otherwise unreliable, but it was clear from the guilty verdicts that they did not do so.23 Chief Justice Freedman concluded that: “upon a review of the evidence in its entirety[,] we are in agreement with the decision of the learned trial Judge to admit the confessions [into evidence] and with the conclusion of the jury that the confessions were truthful. The verdict of guilty accordingly must stand.”24 In 1975, Anderson sought, but was denied, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.25
Allan Woodhouse was granted parole in 1990, but ultimately served 23 years in prison as his parole was revoked on a number of occasions. He later told a reporter that “[t]he Parole Board never believed me that I was innocent.”26 Anderson, who was granted parole in 1987, had initially been denied parole because he maintained his innocence, and the Parole Board feared that he would try to prove his innocence by contacting witnesses if released.27
In 2020, Woodhouse made an application to the federal Minister of Justice, under s. 696 of the Criminal Code, for a new trial on the basis that there had been a miscarriage of justice.28 His lawyers argued that his conviction was the product of systemic racism.29 Anderson had made a similar application in 2019. Woodhouse’s brother Russell, however, had passed away, and his brother Clarence could not be located.30
On June 22, 2023, Minister of Justice David Lametti ordered a new trial for Woodhouse and Anderson because there was “a reasonable basis to conclude that a miscarriage of justice likely occurred.”31 On July 18, 2023, Manitoba prosecutor Michelle Jules called no evidence at their new trial. She requested that the men be acquitted, stating that “[w]e owe them and their families an apology.”32 Jules told the court that their confessions had been “entirely manufactured”33 and that “[s]ystemic racism impacted the investigation, the prosecution and the adjudication of this case. There is no question that there is not credible or reliable evidence to proceed.”34 She further stated that this “case would not have proceeded today. It wouldn’t even come close. It fell well below the expected standards of 1974. . . . Our justice system failed. They were wrongfully convicted. For that I am sorry.”35
The presiding judge, Chief Justice Joyal, then addressed the two men, stating that he was “happy” to enter acquittals for Woodhouse and Anderson: “You are innocent. You deserve acquittals. I’m now happy to enter them. . . . Your stories are stories of courage and resilience.”36
He told them: “I’m happy to offer an apology on behalf of the institution and system that failed you.”37 One of the lawyers for both men, Jerome Kennedy, told the press that “[t]o hear the judge say you’re innocent and to apologize . . . that’s not something that a judge has to do.”38
The Manitoba Attorney General issued a contemporaneous press release, stating:
Fifty years ago, a miscarriage of justice took place in the conviction of Brian Anderson and Allan Woodhouse for the murder of Ting Fong Chan.
While nothing that can be said that will bring back the years of lost freedom or the time away from family and friends . . . I offer my heartfelt apologies to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Woodhouse and their families.
There has also been hardship caused by this wrongful conviction to the family of Ting Fong Chan, who have sought justice for their loved one and mourned his passing for five decades. This miscarriage of justice compounds the suffering of the Chan family as well, and as attorney general, I regret and recognize this hardship.39
Woodhouse told the court at his acquittal proceedings: “It’s unbelievable to be accused of something you didn’t do.”40 He stated that after his conviction, he shut himself away from family and felt practically dead: “I lost my life.”41
After being acquitted, he told reporters, “I feel free. It’s about time somebody believed me. Fifty years is a long time.”42