1. That I am the father of DERIK CHRISTOPHER LORD, and as such have
knowledge of the facts and matters herein.
2. That I have been instructed to act as Counsel for the Appellant in this matter on appeal to the Minister of Justice or to an appropriate Court in respect of his conviction for the murders of DORIS LEATHERBARROW and SHARON HUENEMANN, who died on October 5, 1990, in Delta, British Columbia.
3. That, in the course of preparation for this appeal to the Minister or appropriate Court, it has come to my attention that materials relating to the investigation of this matter were not disclosed to the defense of the Appellant.
4. That the relevance or irrelevance of this information and the exhibits not disclosed cannot be determined without perusing the materials.
5. That Dr. FERRIS is willing to examine the requested materials for the purpose of determining the relevance of such material to the appeal to the Minister or appropriate Court.
6. That without viewing the Curriculum Vitae of Dr. SELLERS it is difficult to determine her expertise in such matters.
7. That the Applicant's appeal in the Court of Appeal for British Columbia was dismissed on the 2nd day of November, 1993, without seeking this information or benefit of these materials.
8. That the Applicant's appeal in the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed on the 21st day of February, 1995, without seeking this information or benefit of these materials.
9. That I have received legal advice to the effect that there is a possibility of appeal to the Minister of Justice for a rehearing of the appeal, and/or that the matter can be brought back to an appropriate Court with leave porvided that sufficient fresh or new evidence can be found, and /or it can be shown that the Appellant did not receive a fair trial.
10. It will be a contention that the Apellant was not provided with full and timely disclosure, preventing him from making full answer and defense.
11. It will also be a contention that material helpful to the defense was purposefully not disclosed, preventing the Appellant from obtaining a fair trial.
12. It will also be a contention that physical evidence was not disclosed which would have been helpful in proving that someone else was at the crime scene, again preventing the Appellant from obtaining a fair trial. There was no physical evidence adduced at trial which placed the Appellant at the scene.
13. I make this affidavit in support of an Order that;
___________________________________ David W. Lord, Counsel for the Appellant
SWORN BEFORE ME in the City
of Burnaby in the province of British Columbia
on this 6th day of October, 1995
A commissioner for taking affidavits for