The man acquitted in his brother’s homicide told officers he was a victim when interviewed by police following the death of George Allan Butler on May 21, 2018.
Philip Butler was found not guilty on all charges against him over the weekend, following his Supreme Court trial.
What wasn’t heard during the trial was Butler’s statement to police, which was ruled inadmissible due to reasonable doubt about whether the statement was made voluntarily.
Read the judgment of Justice Valerie Marshall on R. v. Butler, 2020 at this link.
According to the judgment, Butler was arrested around 8:30 p.m., but the police interview didn’t start until just before midnight.
George Allan Butler’s death occurred earlier that morning.
In Justice Valerie Marshall’s decision, the accused raised medical concerns shortly after the police interview started, saying he was surprised he had not yet been taken to hospital. He repeatedly asked to see a doctor. Butler told police he was bleeding after being sexually assaulted by his brother.
He later claimed to be suffering from pains in his chest and jaw, fearful he was having a heart attack. After a couple of hours lying on the floor in a blanket, Butler was told he would be taken to a doctor—but refused a sexual assault kit, because he’d “been violated enough.” He also demanded clothes before going to the hospital, refusing to go in a Tyvek jumpsuit.
Police repeatedly attempted to have him agree to a sexual assault kit.
Justice Marshall considered whether Butler’s statement was given voluntarily.
She concluded that oppression and inducements were strong enough to raise reasonable doubt about whether Butler’s will as overborne, and his statement was not admissible at trial.
