Detective in 1967 slaying worked to discredit accused's alibi in any way he could despite having first verified it, Court of Appeal told

An Ottawa homicide investigator went from being coolly objective to hell-bent for a conviction upon hearing that Romeo Phillion had confessed to the 1967 murder of firefighter Leopold Roy, a lawyer for Mr. Phillion told the Ontario Court of Appeal yesterday.

Defence counsel James Lockyer said that the investigator, Detective John McCombie, lost his objectivity that night, and continues to cling to his staunch belief in Mr. Phillion's guilt.

"When he was before this court, he was sullen, resentful, combative, truculent, and above all, unhelpful," Mr. Lockyer told a panel of three judges who will determine whether Mr. Phillion actually committed the murder for which he served 31 years in prison.

Mr. Lockyer said that exoneration for Mr. Phillion revolves around whether the judges believe that Det. McCombie was a fair-minded cop or a biased investigator who twisted evidence to ensure that Mr. Phillion would be convicted.

Mr. Phillion's lawyers contend that he falsely confessed in a ill-fated attempt to obtain reward money for his lover. Within hours of making the confession, Mr. Phillion, now 69, retracted it, and has maintained his innocence ever since.

The key evidence in the case is a report that Det. McCombie wrote in 1968 before the confession, in which he stated unequivocally that Mr. Phillion's alibi was unshakeable.

In the report, Det. McCombie said that he had verified that Mr. Phillion was at a Trenton, Ont., gas station between noon and 1 p.m. on Aug. 9, 1967, making it impossible for him to have driven 288 kilometres back to Ottawa by 2:45 p.m., when Mr. Roy was killed.

The report did not surface until 1998, when a parole officer gave it to Mr. Phillion.

Yesterday, Mr. Justice James MacPherson noted that, in stark contrast to Mr. Lockyer's allegations, Det. McCombie was a model of professional objectivity during the first stage of the investigation.

"Why was there this change after the arrest?" he asked.

"The confession ruined everything," Mr. Lockyer replied. "McCombie was suddenly placed in a very strange situation [in which] he had verified an alibi for the man who had just been arrested."

Aghast that the man he had cleared was evidently guilty, Det. McCombie set about discrediting the alibi in any way that he could, Mr. Lockyer said. He said that, in subsequent reports, Det. McCombie referred to Mr. Phillion's alibi as having been debunked.

Judge MacPherson also asked yesterday why Mr. Phillion's trial lawyer - Arthur Cogan - did not ask direct questions that might have led the Crown to disclose Det. McCombie's report on the alibi before Mr. Phillion's trial. Mr. Lockyer said that defence lawyers in the 1970s expected and were given very little in the way of disclosure.

"Having started to practise in 1977, I can remember that you didn't get much of anything," he said. "You had to fight to get anything. Most people didn't do it. I probably didn't myself, I'm ashamed to say."

Mr. Lockyer said that the real question is not whether Mr. Cogan asked the right questions at the time, or whether the Crown knew that it was withholding evidence that could have proved Mr. Phillion innocent. He instead urged the judges to focus on one thing: whether there is a reasonable chance that Mr. Phillion did not kill Mr. Roy.

Final arguments in the proceeding are expected to continue until the middle of next week.