A lawyer at the inquiry into James Driskell's wrongful murder conviction has raised questions about the truthfulness of statements made by Winnipeg's police chief in a 2003 news conference.

James Lockyer, Driskell's lawyer, asked Chief Jack Ewatski why he had maintained for ten years that he had never unearthed new information that could have helped Driskell's case, when in fact he had.

The inquiry has heard that Ewatski, as one of four authors of a 1993 police review into the investigation of Harder's murder, had received new information about Driskell, who spent 12 years behind bars for the 1990 murder of Perry Dean Harder before the conviction was quashed in 2005.

However, despite numerous requests for the review, it was not made public, nor was it shared with Driskell or his lawyers. Ewatski had said several times over the years the 175-page document was classified as an internal investigation and was never intended to be made public.

Jay Prober, who represents one of the Crown attorneys who prosecuted James Driskell in 1991, asked Ewatski at the inquiry why, in Prober's words, the chief "sat on the report."

"Would you agree with that suggestion that you were protecting your officers and you didn't want to tell the Crown because you knew the Crown would have to disclose it?" Prober asked.

"Absolutely not, sir," Ewatski replied.

Review released 10 years later

In 2003, Court of Queen's Bench Justice Jeffrey Oliphant ordered police to make the 1993 review public.

During the inquiry Friday, Lockyer played footage of a news conference that Ewatski, who by then was police chief, held shortly after the review was released.

In the news conference, Ewatski said the purpose of the 1993 review was to ensure Manitoba Justice had received all evidence gathered by police.

But the inquiry has already heard that the review was ordered after media reports raised doubts about Driskell's conviction.

Secret immunity deal

Ewatski had also said at the news conference that the Crown and jury knew everything in his report, including information about a secret immunity deal for Ray Zanidean, one of its witnesses.

In questioning Ewatski on Friday, Lockyer read aloud one of the police chief's answers to reporters.

"'All the evidence that is in the report was provided to the Crown during the course of the criminal proceedings against Mr. Driskell,' " Lockyer read.

"That's patently untrue, isn't it?," he asked Ewatski.

"That was our opinion, sir, that it was [provided]," Ewatski replied.

Ewatski told the inquiry he hadn't answered all of the reporters' questions specifically, but was focusing on his message that it was up to the Crown, and not police, to share information with Driskell and his lawyers.

At the end of Lockyer's cross-examination on Friday, he asked Ewatski whether he had anything to say to Driskell. Ewatski said he did not.

Driskell questions 'integrity, trust, honesty'

Driskell met with reporters during a lunch break at the inquiry Friday. When asked about Ewatski's testimony, Driskell said, "I've got a lot of stuff going through my head right now, and a lot of it's not very nice. But as far as integrity, trust, honesty … I would question it, coming from Mr. Ewatski."

Driskell said he hopes the inquiry will answer questions he said he's been asking for years.

"There's a lot of questions in my mind about integrity and honesty on everybody's part here," he said. "And I'm really hoping to see an outcome that's going to make some changes in all this."

One change Driskell said he hopes to see is Ewatski's resignation as police chief.

Driskell's first-degree murder conviction for the 1990 killing of Perry Dean Harder was quashed in 2005.

DNA evidence

The justice minister, Irwin Kotler, cited several reasons for his decision, including new DNA evidence that showed hairs found in Driskell's van did not belong to the victim — as the Crown had argued at trial — as well as problems with key witnesses and a lack of disclosure of information that could have helped Driskell's defence.

The Manitoba government then stayed the charges against Driskell, which keeps him out of prison but does not officially exonerate him.

The inquiry is probing the role of police, the actions of the Crown and questions of disclosure in the case. The commissioner has also been asked to determine when someone has met the threshold to be declared factually innocent or wrongly convicted.

The inquiry continues for two more weeks.