Case Summary
On July 11, 1986, P.B. was washing her face in her Toronto apartment bathroom when a man appeared in the doorway. His face was concealed by a pair of “women’s underwear on his head.”1 The man approached P.B. and assaulted her, choking her into unconsciousness. Shortly after awakening, P.B. was able to escape by charging the attacker and pushing past him out the front door. She later estimated that she had seen the assailant for about 8-10 seconds in total.2
Later that year, at about 1:00 a.m. on September 25, C.L.F. was waiting for the elevator after parking her car in her apartment building’s underground garage. She heard footsteps approaching and then someone choked her from behind. When C.L.F. awoke, she found that her purse was gone.3 She later indicated to police that she could not identify the attacker beyond a general description of a white male.4
On October 28, between 10:00 and 10:30 p.m., M.S.F. was en route to the stairway in her apartment building’s underground parking lot. A man abruptly pushed her against a wall, and then hit and kicked her repeatedly. After she yelled out “fire,” the assailant left.5 M.S.F. described the perpetrator to police, who searched the area around her building. They arrested Eric Biddle – who somewhat, though imperfectly, resembled M.S.F.’s description – upon seeing him near the crime scene.6
One of the investigating officers who learned of Biddle’s arrest “was convinced that [he] was not the right man,” because his appearance was not close enough to M.S.F.’s description.7 The officer, in uniform, went to the hospital where she was recovering and showed her Biddle’s passport photo, believing that M.S.F. would eliminate him as a suspect.8 However, M.S.F., who was “lying on a stretcher” and “in considerable pain,” confidently identified Biddle’s photo as that of her attacker.9 She later selected Biddle’s picture from a photo line-up as well.10
In November 1986, police showed C.L.F. a photo line-up with a picture of Biddle taken after his arrest. She selected three photos, including Biddle’s, that “looked somewhat like [the] attacker.”11 Police later brought C.L.F. to a court appearance where Biddle and others were attending from pre-trial detention. She was asked “to see if she could identify her attacker.”12 Biddle alone was attired “similar[ly] to the way the attacker was dressed.”13 C.L.F. stated that Biddle “looked familiar” but did not make a positive identification.14 Nonetheless, Biddle was charged with assaulting C.L.F.15
Police took a similar approach to P.B.’s eyewitness evidence. She was shown a line-up in November 1986 that included Biddle’s picture taken after his arrest. She initially indicated four photos, including Biddle’s, that resembled the assailant, but later “excluded Biddle’s picture on the basis that her attacker had ‘more hair’ than the man in the photo.”16 On December 3, a police officer known as G.M. brought P.B. to Biddle’s court appearance for the charges pertaining to M.S.F. She was aware that “she was being taken there to see if she could identify her attacker. A number of prisoners … were then brought into the courtroom,” and P.B. “identified Biddle.”17 None of the other defendants “looked even vaguely like [him].”18 Biddle was then charged with break and enter, overcoming resistance by strangulation, and assault causing bodily harm in connection with the attack on P.B.19
Biddle stood trial for the attacks on M.S.F. and C.L.F. in November 1987.20 The Crown’s case almost exclusively relied on their eyewitness evidence. Both women identified Biddle in court as their assailant. By this point, C.L.F. was convinced of his guilt: police advised her before the trial that Biddle “was her assailant and that the other victim, M.F.H., had identified [him].”21 The Ontario Court of Appeal has since discussed the dangers of “in-dock identifications” where the witness “has a person presented to them … who the police obviously believe committed the offence. Given [their] suggestive nature … [today] they are renowned for being of little to no value.”22 Without the benefit of this perspective, the jury convicted Biddle of both assaults.23
Biddle was tried in December 1987 for the assault against P.B. The Crown’s case principally consisted of P.B.’s eyewitness testimony: she “gave convincing and unwavering in-dock identification evidence” that Biddle was the perpetrator, stating “that she saw [his face] in her ‘nightmares, time and time again’.”24 Biddle was convicted and sentenced to a total of 12 years’ imprisonment, including seven years for assaulting P.B.25
Biddle appealed his convictions for all three of the attacks. The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed his appeals in 1993, and the Supreme Court denied him leave for a further appeal in regards to the attack on P.B.26 However, the Court did hear his appeal regarding the attacks on M.S.F. and C.L.F. In March 1995, the Court overturned these convictions and ordered a new trial.27
On May 3, 1995, Biddle was released on bail pending his retrial, having already completed his sentence with respect to the attack on P.B.28 The Crown did not proceed with a second trial on the charges pertaining to M.S.F. and C.L.F.29
In late 1995, having exhausted his appeal routes, Biddle applied to the Minister of Justice for a review of his conviction on the charges pertaining to P.B.30 After years of investigation which commenced in 1999, it came to light that G.M. – the investigator who brought P.B. to Biddle’s court appearance – had begun a romantic relationship with her at some point in these proceedings.31 While the precise timing of this development is uncertain, “there [was] no dispute that, by the time of [Biddle’s] trial, they had been involved in a serious relationship, at least for six months.”32 This information was never disclosed to the Crown and thus to defence counsel.33
On February 22, 2017, the Minister of Justice referred Biddle’s case back to the Ontario Court of Appeal, requesting that it rehear his appeal in light of this fresh evidence (that is, P.B. and G.M.’s relationship).34 The Court found that “the defence should have been granted the opportunity to explore the potential impact of that relationship on P.B.’s evidence.”35 Importantly, the Court did “not doubt [P.B.’s] genuine belief that Biddle was the man who so viciously attacked her.”36 Rather, “[t]he central question … was not the sincerity of her evidence. It was the reliability of her identification of Biddle as her attacker” in the context of the “intrinsic frailties within eyewitness identification evidence.”37
The Court observed that P.B.’s description of the attacker had evolved significantly over time, and that she had first identified Biddle in the “inherently suspect” setting of his court appearance.38 P.B.’s “relationship with … an investigator who would have known everything about the case” and “had access to the full investigative file” raised concerns that G.M. could have influenced her evidence – whether or not he had any such intention.39 The Crown’s case was also “extraordinarily weak”: besides P.B.’s identification, there was limited circumstantial evidence that “offered little to the trial.”40 Biddle’s conviction therefore could not be sustained in this “classic eyewitness identification case that [already] hung by a thread.”41
On June 7, 2018, the Court of Appeal quashed Biddle’s conviction and ordered a new trial.42 No public record has been found suggesting that the Crown proceeded with a second trial on these charges.