OTTAWA — Ottawa's Crown attorney went on the offensive Tuesday to prevent Romeo Phillion from getting the acquittal he seeks, attacking the potential alibi that led to the quashing of his decades old murder conviction and defending the actions and integrity of veteran Crown prosecutor Mac Lindsay.

Hilary McCormack accused Phillion, convicted of the 1967 murder of Ottawa firefighter Leopold Roy, of only recently adopting the unverified alibi outlined in a 1968 police report that he was at a service station in Trenton, Ont., less than two hours before the killing.

McCormack said Phillion, now 70, instead spent 40 years offering a series of alibis that included being in Montreal with three lawyers, with his mother in Toronto and in New Liskeard, Ont., before claiming for the first time in 2007 that he was at the Trenton gas station.

The court of appeal ordered a new trial for Phillion in 2008 after ruling that if a jury had heard about reports describing the Trenton alibi, along with three other memos that suggested police had ruled Phillion out as a suspect, they may have reached a different verdict.

Phillion, who confessed to the crime and then recanted, spent nearly 32 years in prison before his release.

McCormack argued the alibi was discredited by the investigating detective, which is why Lindsay — who would work his way up the ranks to be named Ottawa's Crown attorney — never disclosed the information to Phillion or his lawyer during the trial.

McCormack added the Ontario court of appeal found there was no misconduct on Lindsay's part and that arguments by Phillion's lawyers Monday that the Crown violated Phillion's constitutional rights by failing to disclose the information following the enactment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms placed an "impossible burden" on them to meet.

What McCormack didn't say, however, was why the Crown is refusing to grant Phillion the arraignment he seeks. Phillion is seeking to have an Ottawa judge force the Crown to arraign him on the murder charge so he can plead not guilty. If the Crown fails to call evidence — and they have said they wouldn't — he would be acquitted of the crime. The move is an attempt to prevent the Crown from simply withdrawing the charge, which is what the attorney general announced they would do last summer.

Phillion's lawyers argued Lindsay breached Phillion's rights by failing to correct information he knew was wrong during Phillion's trial. That breach "crystallized" into a violation of Phillion's constitutional rights in April 1982, when the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted and continued with Lindsay's ongoing failure to provide disclosure to Phillion post conviction.

They have also argued the Crown's refusal to arraign him on the charge so he can be acquitted is a breach of his constitutional right to be presumed innocent.

Citing the court of appeal decision, which found Lindsay did nothing wrong, McCormack dismissed allegations that Lindsay's ongoing failure to provide disclosure was such an "egregious" misconduct that it breached Phillion's Charter rights.

"This whole issue of misconduct by the police and Mr. Lindsay was litigated at great length (at the court of appeal)," said McCormick, who accused Phillion's lawyers of trying to relitigate the case heard before the court of appeal. "Mr. Lindsay was nothing but a man of integrity and a consummate professional."

McCormack argued the Charter cannot be applied retrospectively and that prosecutors would need to keep a "running Rolodex" of cases to compare to new laws to make sure they were not in violation of an accused's rights.

McCormack also argued that Phillion didn't really spend 32 years in prison for the murder, but rather 16 years after receiving 16 years in concurrent sentences for two robberies, including one he committed while on day parole.

But Phillion's lawyer, James Lockyer, argued the acquittal is a "symbolic" remedy which would provide justice to a wronged individual.

"A man who spent 32 years in prison for a crime even the Crown acknowledges it can never prove — is he to be dumped in the no man's land of ambiguity, or can he live the remainder of his life with his head held high and in dignity?" asked Lockyer. "Mr. Phillion has little left but his reputation to salvage from the wreckage of his life. An arraignment, an acquittal, will give him and the Canadian public some solace in the last chapter of this sad tale."