by Chris Meyers Almey
Northern News Services

NNSL (May 28/97) - There have only been two convicts declared dangerous offenders in the NWT in the last 20 years.

The Crown wants to make that three, and on Friday it won a crucial battle in its case against Irvin George McPherson.

Justice John Vertes ruled in NWT Supreme Court that forcing McPherson to undergo a psychiatric assessment would not violate his Charter rights.

Now McPherson will be sent to Toronto for the assessment and return Aug. 15 for the next step in the process. But as Vertes wrote, McPherson could wind up with a favorable evaluation -- which would end the Crown's quest to keep him behind bars after he finishes his current sentence.

The first person found to be a dangerous offender in the territory, Alexis Simon, has been locked away since 1978.

The second convict found to be a dangerous offender was Buddy Melvin Klengenberg in 1995. In June he is appearing in the NWT Court of Appeal to try to overturn his dangerous offender status.

But there is always hope for release from prison. Three years after a person is declared a dangerous offender, the National Parole Board must review the situation to decide if he can be released from jail.

McPherson's last conviction was for a crime committed in November 1995, when he broke into a Fort Simpson home and sexually assaulted a woman.

His lawyer, Tom Boyd, has been fighting the psychiatric assessment order on the grounds it violates his right against self-incrimination, his right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure and his right to life, liberty and security of the person.

Boyd said McPherson faced a "no win" situation for McPherson. If he co-operates he could reveal potentially incriminating information. If he doesn't co-operate, then that could be taken as an indication of psychiatric disturbance.

Vertes ruled that since McPherson has already been found guilty of a crime, the assessment would not violate his rights against self-incrimination. He also ruled that the requirement to attend for observation cannot be equated to seizure of things.

In addition, any person in custody is subject to surveillance, searching and scrutiny, Vertes ruled.

Vertes wrote that when one gets to the stage of determining whether to label an offender dangerous, the interests of society outweigh the potentially incriminating use of psychiatric observation.

On the other hand, nothing compels McPherson to say anything or co-operate with the three psychiatrists who would assess him, Vertes noted.

Vertes cited previous court decisions in making his judgment.