Cara Loverock
Northern News Services
Published Wednesday, June 4, 2008

YELLOWKNIFE - A man found not guilty of sexual assault on May 15 is now stranded in Yellowknife, though he says he was promised a free ride home.

Crown prosecutor Christine Gagnon said when the accused was charged with sexual assault here in 2006, he was a resident of Yellowknife.

He then failed to appear for his preliminary inquiry in July 2006.

"A warrant was issued for his arrest at that time and the preliminary inquiry was held in his absence and he was committed to stand trial," said Gagnon.

"He was arrested a year later in October 2007 in Toronto by the Toronto police for an offence down there. When they ran his name through their computers they realized there was a warrant for his arrest."

He was arrested and brought back to Yellowknife, charged with failure to appear for court, and was held in custody until his trial.

The accused said he was told by a case worker during his eight months in the North Slave Correctional Centre that he would be provided with a free ride back to Toronto.

"They'll send me back, no problem," the man said he was told. "Just a ticket and I can go home."

But after his acquittal and release he said he went to the RCMP station and was told he would not be sent back south.

"(His circumstances) are a little bit different from the circumstances outlined in the GNWT guidelines in the witness expense assistance program," said Gagnon.

According to the GNWT Department of Justice guidelines, for accused persons to be transported to court or returned home three criteria must be met: court must be in a community other than the one where the offence took place, the person was released from custody away from his or her community in the NWT and no other agency or department is able or willing to help them and they lack the financial means to get home themselves.

Yellowknife RCMP Sgt. Vic Steinhammer said since the man was convicted of failing to appear for court, that changes the circumstances for transfer. The accused created the situation by fleeing the jurisdiction after telling the court he would not leave, according to Steinhammer.

"So why should the taxpayers pick up the bill to fly him back when he was the one who fled the jurisdiction and was convicted on the failure to appear?" he said.