Phillion's confession cost him 3 decades in prison; now he hopes ruling will clear him of murder

With his fate in the hands of three judges, Romeo Phillion walked out of court yesterday with hope for exoneration and deep regret for confessing 36 years ago to a murder he says he didn't commit.

"I was so naive, so stupid. I kick my butt for what I did," he said ruefully. "I ruined my life, for a stupid thing."

If the Ontario Court of Appeal acquits Phillion, as his lawyers urged yesterday in the closing moments of an extraordinary hearing, he will have the distinction of being the longest-serving wrongly convicted person in the western world.

Brushing away tears, Phillion, 69, told reporters outside Osgoode Hall that while he contributed to his misfortune by signing a 1972 statement admitting to stabbing Ottawa firefighter Leopold Roy, he also wants police and prosecutors to "face the music" for their role in the unusual case.

"They can be buggers. But, I tell you, somebody's got to pay for this," he said. "That's all I want - exoneration and a public inquiry. So it doesn't happen to anyone else."

At one point during the hearing, Justice Michael Moldaver remarked he's never known of a case such as Phillion's, where police verified an alibi - placing Phillion hundreds of kilometres away at the time of the murder - then claimed to have debunked their own finding. That alibi is now the focus of the court's review.

Justice John Laskin, who heads the panel, yesterday described the case as "enormously difficult."

Eight days of legal argument were marked by lively courtroom exchanges. The panel, including Justice James Macpherson, interjected frequently with questions, but certain themes emerged, suggesting where the court's concerns lie.

During the Crown's argument, the court returned again and again to what Phillion's lawyer, James Lockyer, described as a "very telling" incident at his client's 1972 preliminary hearing, when lead investigator John McCombie, testified he'd unearthed no new information in the case between the 1967 murder and Phillion's 1972 confession.

What McCombie had neglected to mention was that he'd written a report on April 12, 1968, which confirmed Phillion was at a Trenton gas station less than two hours before the murder and couldn't have committed the crime. No records exist to support McCombie's claim he later discredited the alibi.

Crown counsel Lucy Cecchetto argues that Phillion's trial lawyer, Arthur Cogan, knew about the alibi; the proof is that he asked no questions in court about his client being in Trenton just before the murder, she said.

This was likely done for strategic purposes, she theorized, arguing the Trenton evidence would have made no difference to the verdict.

Her argument was met with incredulity.

"You say you're going to show us why it doesn't matter, but I say to you, good luck," said Moldaver, who suggested the evidence could have opened up numerous avenues of cross-examination for the defence.

The hearing was not without considerable bumps for Phillion's lawyers. The court accused them of cherry-picking, using Phillion's personality traits - impulsiveness, unclear thinking and a tendency to tell stories - to explain away evidence that doesn't fit their case.

Admitting the McCombie report as fresh evidence is one route to overturning Phillion's conviction. It could also happen if the court admits testimony from a false confession expert, who concludes Phillion's 1972 statement - which was quickly recanted - was likely false.

If Phillion's conviction is set aside, the court can enter an acquittal, a stay of proceedings or order a new trial. After 41 years, a new trial seems a practical impossibility.

"We'll do our best to come up with a just decision," Laskin said before the panel retired. "It'll be a little while, but we'll get it out reasonably soon."