Winnipeg police officers and Manitoba Crown attorneys should shoulder the blame for a miscarriage of justice that left James Driskell in prison for more than 12 years, lawyers in their final arguments at the inquiry into Driskell's wrongful conviction said Monday.

Driskell was sentenced to life in prison for the 1990 slaying of Perry Dean Harder after being convicted of first-degree murder in 1991. DNA evidence prompted the federal justice minister of the day to overturn Driskell's conviction in 2005.

The inquiry, which began July 17, is probing the role of police, the actions of the Crown and questions of disclosure in the case.

Michael Code, the counsel for the commission of inquiry, said Monday that Winnipeg police did not tell Crown prosecutors about deals they had made with Ray Zanidean, a controversial key witness against Driskell. Zanidean was given immunity on an arson charge in Saskatchewan in exchange for his testimony

The inquiry had earlier heard that Zanidean had demanded and received tens of thousands of dollars and other perks in exchange for his testimony, while threatening to change his story or recant altogether.

Winnipeg police Chief Jack Ewatski had maintained throughout the inquiry that it was the Crown's responsibility to provide information to the defence.

"The justice system depends on senior officials to make decisions that are in the best interests in the administration of justice. And there was clearly a failure in the senior levels of the ministry of the attorney general here in Manitoba," Code told the inquiry.

Crown attorneys criticized

Code said three Manitoba Crown attorneys responsible for Driskell's case — former assistant deputy justice minister Stu Whitley, then-director of prosecutions Bruce Miller and lead prosecutor George Dangerfield — must bear responsibility collectively for Driskell staying behind bars for those years.

James Lockyer, who has been representing Driskell at the inquiry, said his client wants to know why justice wasn't served in his case.

"Mr. Driskell, of course, wants to know what happened in his case, and he wants accountability, but he also wants his case used for broader purposes — to minimize wrongful convictions in our criminal justice system," Lockyer told the inquiry Monday.

Seeks apology

While Driskell had heard apologies from several key people during the inquiry, including Whitley, Driskell still wants to hear an apology from provincial Justice Minister David Chomiak.

The Driskell inquiry marks the second time Manitoba Crown prosecutors have been investigated for withholding evidence in a murder trial.

A 2001 inquiry into Thomas Sophonow's wrongful conviction found the Crown had failed to give evidence about the questionable credibility of their witnesses.

Sophonow spent nearly fours years in jail for the 1981 murder of doughnut shop clerk Barbara Stoppel before he was acquitted in 1985. Winnipeg police announced in 2000 that DNA evidence had cleared his name. Sophonow received an apology and $2.6 million in compensation.

The Driskell inquiry report is expected by the end of the year.

In 2005, federal justice minister Irwin Cotler cited several reasons for his decision to quash Driskell's conviction, including new DNA evidence that showed hairs found in Driskell's van did not belong to the victim — as the Crown had argued at trial — as well as problems with key witnesses and a lack of disclosure of information that could have helped Driskell's defence.

The Manitoba government stayed the charges against Driskell, which keeps him out of prison but does not officially exonerate him.

The inquiry is probing the role of police, the actions of the Crown and questions of disclosure in the case. The commissioner has also been asked to determine when someone has met the threshold to be declared factually innocent or wrongly convicted.