Case Summary
In 1968, a 14-year-old girl claimed that she had been sexually assaulted and impregnated by a biracial Black and Indigenous 18-year-old named Gerald Barton.1 On October 28, 1969, Barton pled guilty to having had sexual intercourse with a female between 14-16 years of age, contrary to s. 138(2) of the Criminal Code. This was a lesser charge than rape. Barton had been granted bail after being detained in the Digby, Nova Scotia jail for a day. His family had placed a mortgage on their home to obtain the $500 bail.2 He was sentenced to one year of probation.3 Barton left school after the conviction and has subsequently worked as a manual labourer. For 42 years he carried the stigma and criminal record of a sexual offender.
In 2011, Barton’s conviction was quashed by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal in light of new evidence and with prosecutorial consent.4 The new evidence included DNA evidence that revealed that the father of the complainant’s baby was not Barton, but the complainant’s own brother. This evidence came to light in 2008, when the police became involved in a dispute in the complainant’s family. The complainant recanted her 1969 statements that Mr. Barton had sexually assaulted her.5
The events leading up to Barton’s conviction are unclear, even for Barton himself. The RCMP notes indicated that Barton admitted to having sexual intercourse with the complainant but said it was consensual and he did not ejaculate.6 Barton claimed that he did not recall making any statement. Moreover, he did not recall having legal representation at the preliminary hearing. He thought the person who was his lawyer was actually the prosecutor but it appears that defence counsel may have represented him at the preliminary inquiry.7 Defence counsel may have acted for free because Barton’s family was too poor to afford a lawyer.
After his wrongful conviction was overturned, Barton brought a civil suit against Nova Scotia and the RCMP for malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, and violations of his Charter rights. He was unsuccessful in claiming compensation at the Superior Court, who found no evidence of negligent or discriminatory investigation, nor any violation of his Charter rights that warranted compensation. The court found that the RCMP had not ignored exculpatory evidence because there was no exculpatory evidence in 1969. The RCMP had also inquired into the credibility of the complainant. Their notes read: “I patrolled to Jordantown, N.S., a Negro community, and interviewed the [M] girl. This girl appears to be of average intelligence, comes from a poor family and neighbourhood enquiries indicate she is of chaste character.”8
The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal upheld this civil trial verdict in 2015, stating: “There is no guarantee in Canada that money will be paid to compensate a person who claims to have been wronged after an acquittal. This case demonstrates that fact.”9
Barton later asserted that an apology was unneeded at this point, as it would not serve to undo any of the damage that the wrongful conviction had caused over the past four decades.10 “I am not angry,” Barton told the National Post. “[But] it was a dirty trick they played on me. They threw me in jail, like I was nothing, and I don’t think that’s right.”11