The Chilliwack father of a convicted murderer who has claimed innocence for more than two decades had his appeal for trespassing at Matsqui Institution rejected by a BC Supreme Court justice.
David Lord was convicted of trespassing on the penitentiary lands after he tried to visit his son Derik Lord on June 14, 2015.
Derik Lord and David Muir were convicted in 1992 of murdering Sharon Huenemann and her mother Doris Leatherbarrow two years earlier.
The high-profile case was the subject of extensive media coverage at the time and was later made into a movie and a book.
Despite overwhelming evidence, David and his wife Elouise Lord have proclaimed their son is innocent of the killing on behalf of a third young man, Darren Huenemann, the victims’ son and grandson.
For more than 15 years Derik has been eligible for parole but has repeatedly been rejected because of his refusal to admit responsibility.
The Lords have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to try to prove their son is innocent to no avail. Muir admitted to the killings and has been on full parole since 2003. Huenemann is still in prison, possibly in Quebec, after a brief 1995 escape from Matsqui.
David Lord has been engaged in ongoing litigation with the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) to be allowed to visit his son.
“He is aging and in failing health; he fears he will not see his son before he dies,” BC Supreme Court Justice Neill Brown wrote in the April 6 decision.
It was on June 14, 2015 when David Lord visited Matsqui Institution in Abbotsford. He went to the main entrance and was told by the correctional manager Pasquale Corrado that Lord’s visitation privileges had been suspended.
Lord refused to leave and subsequently walked along a perimeter fence in a restricted area.
“Mr. Lord ignored Mr. Corrado’s demands to stop yelling at the prisoners, who had to be taken back inside the unit.” Justice Brown wrote.
Abbotsford police were called and Lord was arrested for trespassing.
At trial, the provincial court judge said Lord was given a clear warning from several officers, his activity disrupted inmates and was a major security concern.
“Clearly, at that point his presence is unlawful.”
Lord was sentenced to two years probation, in part because of concern on the part of the judge that Lord would reoffend. In his ruling, Brown recounted how the trial judge stated to Lord that the sentence could have been harsher.
“[He stated] that if he were a different man in different circumstances and a little younger, he would think jail would be appropriate — considering Mr. Lord had three trespasses on his record. Mr. Lord then responded ‘I’ll have four when this is over with because I’m going to go back and do it again.’ At that point, the trial judge noted that, ‘for the record, the next time jail [would be] the only thing left.’”
In rejecting Lord’s appeal, Brown stated that as with Lord’s defence at trial, the elderly man is upset at CSC’s denial of his right, as he sees it, to visit his son rather than the matter at hand, the trespassing charge.
Lord made Charter arguments about his visitation that the appeal judge ruled were irrelevant to the criminal trespassing.
The trial judge in the case pointed to Lord’s criminal record, which in recent years has involved wilfully obstructing peace officers, trespassing and causing a disturbance.
“I think now you have just developed this anti-authority/anti-police stance,” the judge stated.
“I find no fault with the sentence the trial judge imposed,” Justice Brown wrote, “considering the circumstances and Mr. Lord’s record.”
paul.henderson@theprogress.com
@PeeJayAitch
