SIU Versus Toronto Police: An Update

As noted the other day, there has been an ongoing jurisdictional battle in the case of alleged police brutality victim Tyrone Phillips. The complaint, filed by Phillips to the Office of the Independent Police Review Director, could not be investigated by the SIU because Toronto Police, citing provincial regulations, refused to hand it over to SIU head Ian Scott, despite the fact that Phillips had given his permission to do so.

Resolution appears to be at hand. As reported in today's Star, the complainant was able to obtain his original report from the Office of the Independent Police Review Director, and the SIU was planning to pick it up today.

Let's hope that this is the end of an unseemly episode in which the pursuit of justice seems to have been the least consideration of the warring fiefdoms.

Toronto Police: Again and Again and Again ....

Albert Einstein famously defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. By that standard, perhaps both the Toronto Police force and I are insane; I seem to periodically write essentially the same blog post about their misbehaviour, and they seem to keep practising a disturbing pattern of conduct that cries out for remediation.

The latest case of alleged police brutality was reported yesterday in The Toronto Star:

Ian Scott, director of the Special Investigations Unit, (the body that probes incidents of serious injury and death in which police officers are involved) said Wednesday he was unable to conduct an “adequate” probe into a brutality complaint made by Tyrone Phillips, who alleges police beat him up during his arrest outside a nightclub.

Toronto police, Scott said, have refused to provide the SIU with Phillips’ complaint, first filed to the Office of the Independent Police Review Director, a provincial agency that probes grievances against police, then forwarded on to police.

The story, laughable were it not for the seriousness of the incident, outlines what seems to be a bureaucratic and jurisdictional dispute between two provincial bodies that, upon closer examination, suggests once again that Chief Bill Blair is continuing a policy of opacity that shields his officers from any real accountability.

Hiding behind the strict letter of legislation, his spokesperson, Mark Pugash, offers fatuous reasons for not releasing the formal complaint filed by Phillips, who alleges he was beaten severely by police and placed under arrest for no apparent reason, sustaining a serious concussion in the process, one that medical records verify.

As reported in today's Star, while the victim has given permission for the release of his complaint to the SIU, all that police spokesman Mark Pugash seems interested in doing is disingenuously carp about the fact that SIU head Scott went to the media to complain about his force's intransigence:

Pugash asked Thursday why Scott “went through the exercise he did yesterday with the inflammatory and quite offensive news release.”

Meanwhile, the larger issue of police brutality seems to be getting lost in this jurisdictional 'pissing match.'

And according to The Star's Rosie DiManno, there is sufficient blame to go around:

Each party has wrapped itself in the piety of rules. Yet those purported rules, as interpreted, have resulted in nobody doing the morally correct thing.

Scott has a complaint and a complainant. The police information sworn out after Phillips’ arrest would include the badge number of the arresting officer. That’s an obvious starting point for the SIU investigation. The subject officer isn’t compelled to submit to an interview — another failing of the Police Act. But it doesn’t require an investigative reporter to chase down the basic facts of the incident: Witness officers, if there were any; booking officer, or anybody else who came in contact with the accused; hospital records, to which the patient is entitled.

Ultimate responsibility for the conduct of the men and women of the Toronto Police force rests with 'teflon' Chief Bill Blair, a man apparently more deft at maneuvering to protect his own career than he is at holding himself and his force to account. As DiManno pointedly asks,

What did Police Chief Bill Blair do with Phillips’ complaint? What was the outcome of the mandated police investigation before the grievance was sent on to the SIU? It should be noted that the Police Act does, in fact, allow the chief to divulge information contained in a complaint received, under various exceptions to the nondisclosure guidelines, which shouldn’t be there as masking layer anyway.

Both excellent questions, the answers to which, if past performance is any indication, will not be forthcoming.

Cost-Saving Innovations in Policing

Dismayed as I may be over the sometimes heavy-handed actions of police, I would never suggest that the necessary role they play in society is exaggerated. Nonetheless, there appear to be ways of providing service that help to reduce overall costs without sacrificing effectiveness.

A story in yesterday's Star, called The thinning blue line discusses how American forces are coping with declining budgets by using civilian investigators to do the paperwork for non-violent crimes such as burglaries, as well as adopting new technologies that replace the human factor. It is an article well-worth reading.

G20 Summit Inquiry

">
While I have written extensively elsewhere on the abuses of Charter Rights that took place during the G20 Summit in Toronto last June, I was heartened by some information received from the Real News Network about the extent of the latest inquiry, to be conducted by the Office of the Independent Police Review director. The information is as follows:


Ontario G20 Police Review Director Makes a Pledge

Gerry McNeilly: Will conduct a systemic review of police actions during G20 after complaints from citizens indicate a ‘pattern of behavior concerns’.

Oct. 5 TRNN - A review by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) will delve into the method behind the madness of Toronto’s G20 policing fiasco.

In an interview with The Real News, Senior Editor Paul Jay asked director of the IOPRD, Gerry McNeilly about whether his review would address specific incidents, such as the kettling of peaceful protesters on Queen Street, the intolerance of self-identified journalists, to the extent of arresting or being violent towards journalists, and the absence of police during the notorious police car burnings being a strategic move to validate other police hostility. McNeilly, said the review will be systemic, and will address all incidents mentioned in complaints received by his office, including unlawful arrests, detainment, treatment of journalists, and the training and culture that police were exposed to in preparation of the summit.

In an interview with The Real News, McNeilly said both the nature and volume of complaints received by his office compelled him to conduct the review. He said the complaints pointed to a pattern of police behavior that warranted investigation.

“And that led me to look at the authorities that I have under the legislation, and the authorities indicated that I have the ability to conduct a review of a systemic nature when a pattern of behavior concerns developed. And this was that situation,” he said.

The IOPRD has the legal authority, under the Public Inquiries Act, to issue subpoenas and conduct searches if evidence or testimony is not forthcoming.

“I have the power, and if I have to use the power, I will,” he said.

Investigating the Integrated Security Unit, the policing body responsible for security during the G20, is tricky as it consisted of Toronto police but was headed up by RCMP chief superintendent Alfonse McNeil. McNeilly said his jurisdiction doesn’t extend to the RCMP.

“I cannot review the RCMP and its role. I will talk to the RCMP to find out about its role and what part that they played in policing and providing security for the G-20, but I don't have the authority. That's the Canadian Police Commission's role,” he said.

He said he doesn’t know of any review being conducted of the RCMP’s role in the G20, but said he would be talking to chief superintendent Alfonse McNeil.

“And, as I said, to date I have not had any indication that they are not prepared to cooperate with me,” he said.

The Real News has raised concerns over the Public Works Protection Act, and the Breech of the Queen’s Peace legislation, that were cited in most of the arrests during the summit, as they appear to negate the constitutional right to free assembly. McNeilly said his office will be investigating unlawful arrests, including ‘the tools that were used’, but said his authority doesn’t permit him to review the constitutional legitimacy of legislation.

“I am not specifically going to be reviewing any piece of legislation as to the appropriateness of that legislation, you are correct. That's for the courts to do.”

He said his review will be transparent, but will not include public hearings in order to expediate the process. He said his biggest challenge is addressing the volume of complaints quickly enough that the findings remain current and meaningful to the public.