Case Summary
Brian Anderson 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 to look 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 seeing 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: Brian Anderson, then 18 years old; Allan Woodhouse, 17; Allan’s brother Clarence Woodhouse, 21; and his brother Russell Woodhouse, 19.3
Police arrested Anderson one week after the murder, claiming that they had witnesses who identified him at the scene. They told him that the Woodhouse brothers had confessed and had implicated Anderson in the killing. None of these police statements were true.4
Anderson, who spoke limited English, did not have a lawyer or interpreter present at his police interview. He signed a written confession that the detectives provided to him. Anderson later stated that the police led him to believe he was only signing a form to get back the property taken from him when he was arrested.5
The three Woodhouse brothers likewise signed written confessions provided by police. In the aftermath, all four youths described being threatened and assaulted by the officers prior to signing the statements.6 Both of the officers who obtained Anderson’s confession were subsequently accused of police brutality in another case.7
Anderson faced mandatory life imprisonment if convicted of murder, but consistently maintained his innocence. A teacher who had worked with him in prison was quoted as saying: “I [told him] ‘look, Anderson, I'm sure you can still get off with this if you plead manslaughter.’ I'll never forget it. He looked me straight in the eye and said . . . ‘if I do that, that means I killed somebody. I never killed a person.’”8
At their trial, which was held in English, the four young men had to testify without interpreters.9 In addition, though Anderson said that he had an alibi—he was with his grandfather on the night of Chan’s murder—his lawyer did not call his grandfather to the stand.10
Since there was no physical evidence linking Anderson or his three co-accused to the murder, the prosecution’s case rested on their written confessions. Anderson and the Woodhouse brothers all denied making these statements. They challenged the admissibility of the confessions on the basis that their statements were involuntary because the police had subjected them to threats and violence.11
However, the trial judge decided that the prosecutor, George Dangerfield, had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the men’s confessions were obtained voluntarily. Dangerfield would go on to be 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.12 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.13
In March 1974, after a 12-day trial, the all-white Winnipeg jury convicted Brian Anderson, Allan Woodhouse, and Clarence Woodhouse of second degree murder, and Russell Woodhouse of manslaughter.14 Anderson was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for 10 years.15
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.16 “This is our country,” he said.17
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.”18
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.19 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.20 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.”21 In 1975, Anderson sought, but was denied, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.22
In 1978, Anderson’s case received favourable press attention from the investigative media show W5, based in part on his passing a polygraph test where he denied involvement in Chan’s killing.23 Unfortunately, nothing came from this press attention, even though the RCMP was prepared to reinvestigate the case in light of the polygraph evidence if the Attorney General of Manitoba had authorized it.24
Brian Anderson’s corrections file described him as a “model prisoner.”25 He obtained his high school diploma, having started with a Grade 6 education, and went on to earn university credits and to learn a trade. Strikingly, however, the warden characterized his repeated assertions that he had not killed Chan as “an obsession with his innocence.”26
Anderson was also initially 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 He was granted parole in 1987, but was still subject to parole restrictions that required regular check-ins and prior approval if he left Winnipeg.28 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.”29
In 2019, Anderson made an application to the federal Minister of Justice, under s. 696 of the Criminal Code, for a new trial on the basis that his conviction had been a miscarriage of justice. His lawyers argued that the police had invented Anderson’s confession and manipulated him into signing it, and that his conviction was the product of systemic racism.30 One of his lawyers, Jerome Kennedy, stated that: “Underlying it all is the hint [that] these four young men were easy targets for the police. . . . The criminal justice system at that point, in 1974, accepted what the police said was true as opposed to these young Indigenous men.”31
Allan Woodhouse made a similar application in 2020.32 His brother Russell, however, had passed away, and his brother Clarence could not be located.33
Minister of Justice David Lametti ordered a new trial for both Brian Anderson and Allan Woodhouse on June 22, 2023, because there was “a reasonable basis to conclude that a miscarriage of justice likely occurred.”34
On July 18, 2023, Manitoba prosecutor Michelle Jules called no evidence on the date of the new trial. Instead she requested that Anderson and Woodhouse be acquitted, stating, “[w]e owe them and their families an apology.”35 Jules told the court that their confessions had been “entirely manufactured”36 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.”37 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.”38
The presiding judge, Chief Justice Joyal, then addressed Anderson and Woodhouse, stating that he was “happy” to enter acquittals for them: “You are innocent. You deserve acquittals. I’m now happy to enter them. . . . Your stories are stories of courage and resilience.”39 He added that: “I’m happy to offer an apology on behalf of the institution and system that failed you.”40
After his clients’ acquittals, 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.”41
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.42
Anderson told the court at his acquittal proceedings that his wrongful conviction “should never have happened. I should never have had to spend time behind bars . . . for something I didn’t do.”43