Nunavut man convicted of murder to get court-appointed lawyer

Adrian Van Eindhoven is escorted in handcuffs from the Nunavut Court of Justice in Iqaluit to a police vehicle during his trial in October 2013. (PHOTO BY DAVID MURPHY)

The Nunavut Court of Appeal ruled Feb. 10 that Adrian VanEindhoven of Rankin Inlet, found guilty of second degree murder in 2013, must get a court-appointed lawyer to help him appeal the conviction.

The Legal Services Board of Nunavut, which administers legal aid in Nunavut, had denied funding for the appeal in a letter to VanEindhoven this past November.

But the three-member panel of appeal court judges said that, in the interests of justice, the convicted killer should get a court-appointed lawyer.

“In our view, the appeal is not frivolous,” their judgment said.

A 12-member jury sitting in Iqaluit found VanEindhoven guilty of the second degree murder charge on Oct. 15, 2013, following a second trial.

VanEindhoven’s spousal partner, Leanne Irkotee, died April 23, 2004 of a single stab wound to the heart, inflicted with a steak knife, after he had inflicted a prolonged, savage beating on her.

Evidence introduced at trial revealed that VanEindhoven punched her, bit her, and kicked her repeatedly with steel-toed boots, leaving her body covered with wounds and bruises.

His defence lawyers argued, however, that the stab wound to the chest that killed the woman could have been caused by an accident.

The Iqaluit jury recommended VanEindhoven serve 25 years in jail before becoming eligible for parole.

Justice Earl Johnson, however, imposed a 13-year period of parole ineligibility along with a mandatory sentence of life in prison.

That followed VanEindhoven’s second trial on the charge, held because the Nunavut Court of Appeal had overturned an earlier conviction for second degree murder that dates to January 2007.

At that time, Justice Robert Kilpatrick imposed a 12-year period of parole ineligibility.

VanEindhoven’s appeal of his 2013 conviction would assert that the trial judge did not “adequately caution the jury to ignore certain personal opinions expressed by prosecuting counsel during the course of his address to the jury,” the appeal court judgment said.

That’s because the Crown prosecutor at the second trial expressed “personal” opinions to the jury that the judge should have rejected and cautioned the jury on.

The appeal court did not rule on VanEindhoven’s appeal.

But they did say that VanEindhoven does not have the means to pay for a lawyer and that his reasons for appeal are strong enough to justify hiring a court-appointed lawyer to help him.

Citation: R. v. VanEindhoven, 2015 NUCA 01