Lethbridge Courthouse

By Lara Fominoff

University of Lethbridge Neuropsychologist qualified as expert in Twigg and Scout manslaughter trial

Oct 2, 2019 | 4:01 PM

LETHBRIDGE, AB – The methods by which police officers interrogate individuals with poor cognitive function, and whether those individuals are capable of understanding their rights, was the crux of a voire dire – or trial within a trial – in the Simon Danny Scout and Rylan James Twigg manslaughter trial in Court of Queen’s Bench Wednesday (Oct.2).

Both men are charged with one count each of manslaughter in the death of Kenrick First Rider in a north Lethbridge home on Nov. 27, 2017.

University of Lethbridge Neuropsychologist Dr. Robert James Sutherland was called as a potential Defense witness by lawyer Ingrid Hess to speak to the impediments the 25-year-old Twigg may have encountered, when dealing with Lethbridge Police during a taped confession.

Sutherland told the court that when testing Twigg according to guidelines set out in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), he was found to have an IQ of 66. He was functionally illiterate – never really learning to read or write – despite attending school until the 10th grade. Hess told the court that while he had not officially been diagnosed with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD), his mother had consumed “copious amounts” of alcohol while she was pregnant with him.

Rather, Hess told the court that Twigg suffered from a “constellation of deficits that resemble FASD.” Because of those deficits, she argued that he was inclined to give in to pressure and was susceptible to suggestion. The testimony of Dr. Sutherland was needed to help understand that.

What's Happening in Lethbridge this week: October 28-November 3, 2024

Oct 28, 2024

What's Happening in Lethbridge this week: October 21-27, 2024

Oct 21, 2024

What's Happening in Lethbridge this weekend: October 11, 2024

Oct 11, 2024

However, Co-Crown Prosecutor Michael Fox told Justice Johnna Kubik that Twigg’s cognitive deficiencies may have been self- induced through chronic drug and alcohol use, and that there was no basis for Dr. Sutherland’s testimony.

In fact, Fox said during a confession to Lethbridge Police (which has not yet been admitted as evidence), that Twigg was in fact aware of his circumstances when giving his statement to Cst. Anthony Tupper; that he had no problem processing the information given to him, citing his own statements including “I can’t talk to you. My lawyer says not to,” and “it’s my life.”

Twigg was afforded the right to counsel, and prior to making his statement to police, went to visit his brother before he “went to jail.” Therefore, said Fox, he was of an operating mind.

He went on to say that police in Canada often use techniques like creating a false friendship with suspects, using emotional pleas, and making promises that don’t overbear an individual’s will – and that is allowed.

Hess argued that some of those techniques have consequences and that it’s unfair to people with cognitive disabilities because they may not understand the potential jeopardy they are in.

Justice Johnna Kubik ultimately ruled that Dr. Sutherland’s testimony would be relevant, including how alcohol and drug withdrawal effects could affect an individual’s voluntariness. He was qualified as an expert in cognitive neuroscience, neuropharmacology and brain science.

Dr. Sutherland must not however, offer his opinion on whether Twigg understood Charter cautions, his potential jeopardy or the conduct of Cst. Tupper during the young man’s statement.

Additional behavioral/cognitive experts are expected to testify later in the week.