On Police Accountability

“Someone must have been telling lies about Joseph K., for without having done anything wrong he was arrested one fine morning.”

― Franz Kafka, The Trial

One of the most intriguing books I have ever read in my long reading life is The Trial. The above quotation represents the heart of the novel, about a man who endures the torturous and protracted processes of an arcane justice system. I found myself thinking about the book during the trial of Ulmar Zammer, whose hellish descent into the justice system is one almost too awful to contemplate.

The novel's resonance in the case emerges when considering the false testimony three officers gave about the circumstances of the 'crime.'  They all averred that Zameer had struck head-on Officer Northrup, testimony that was clearly belied both by accident reconstruction experts and video of what took place in the underground garage where Northrup met his fate.

One of the most troubling aspects of the trial is that it largely seemed to go forward on the basis of that false testimony. And despite the observation of the presiding judge that the case for murder was extremely weak, the Crown pressed on. There was nary a word about not having a reasonable prospect of conviction, perhaps because the case involved a police death, and Crown attorneys do value good relationships with the authorities.

So is there justice to be found in all of this? I have my doubts, since the closest anyone has come in describing the false testimony of the police witnesses is collusion, a process the Crown stoutly denied, since the officers "would have had no reason to collude." What seems notably absent in the official discussions of the police misbehaviour is the P word- perjury. The best Toronto police chief Myron Demkiw can do, in an act that smacks more of political theatre than an earnest pursuit of justice, is to have the OPP investigate his officers' behaviour.

In a statement late Monday afternoon, Denkiw referred to “adverse comments” made by [Justice] Molloy in explaining his reason for asking for the review. He did not detail those comments any further.

“Whenever the Toronto Police Service becomes aware of concerns raised by the judiciary, its governance requires that a review be conducted with respect to officer testimony, conduct, procedures, practices, and training,” the statement notes.

An Internet search suggests that charging police with perjury is fairly rare, though I note a Toronto officer was charged yesterday. The language is interesting:

The force says that in June last year, the officer gave investigators false, misleading or inaccurate information regarding a criminal investigation involving that person.

Police say the 39-year-old constable was charged this week with two counts of attempting to obstruct justice and one count of perjury.

Why is there apparently not a similar appetite to charge the offending officers in the Zameeer case?  Could it have anything to do with the fact that they lost "one of their own" in the tragic accident that took officer Northrup's life?

Of course, my lifelong cynicism suggests no charges will ultimately be filed. I stand, however, ready to be happily corrected.

 

Look Before You Speak

It is obviously just human nature to sometimes react with outrage and certitude when confronted with something that seems to beggar common sense. We have likely all experienced such a response at one time or another. The recent acquittal of Ulmar Zameer, charged with murdering a police officer, is an object lesson in caution.

You will likely recall that when the charge was brought down in 2021, prominent politicians like John Tory, Patrick Brown and Doug Ford reacted with very public disgust and outrage over the granting of bail to Zameer. It seemed inexplicable to many that a man charged with first degree murder of a police officer should not be vegetating in jail until his trial. The problem was that the judge had placed a publication ban on the reason bail was granted.

While Tory has expressed some regret over his comments, neither Brown nor Ford (the later not known for either introspection or humility) have spoken a word. At least the judge in the trial, Justice Anne Malloy, expressed her apologies for the costly ordeal that the Zameer family underwent. 

While apologies might seem a mere pro forma gesture, I suspect it can do a great deal to help assuage the trauma of the family and rehabilitate Zameer's reputation; the charges led to the losss of his job, his house, and his freedom (house arrest pending trial).

Referring to Justice Malloy's apology, Andre Phillips writes that Tory, Brown and Ford should do the same:

Those politicians ought to do at least that much. They ought to apologize to Zameer for getting it so wrong and stoking public hostility toward someone who was ultimately found to be no more than a participant in a tragic series of mistakes.

They should have known better. They were clearly pandering to public opinion, which was understandably outraged by the death of an on-duty police officer. In the absence of any actual evidence about what happened that day in the parking garage under Toronto City Hall, it was all too tempting to play the “jail, not bail” card.

Two of them (Tory and Brown) are lawyers. They should have been particularly sensitive to the importance of the presumption of innocence — the foundation of our system of criminal law. It’s also the underlying reason why people charged with crimes have a presumptive right to bail in most circumstances.

It’s not a matter of “coddling criminals,” as grandstanding politicians often claim these days. It’s a basic principle that people shouldn’t be deprived of their freedom until it’s proven in a court of law that they actually committed a crime.

And there was another factor at work in the entire ordeal, say Phillips.

 All these leaders whipped up public opinion against an innocent man. The fact that Zameer is from Pakistan made it worse, exposing him to xenophobic hatred. The system eventually worked, but no thanks to politicians and others who jumped to conclusions before the facts were in.

They — and the rest of us — should learn some lessons from that. The first is: when you don’t really know what happened, just shut up. 

On that I'll end, with just one more note. A Go Fund Me Campaign exists for those wishing to help the Zameer family defray their legal costs.

The Virtues Of Restraint

I suspect if teachers were to be completely completely honest, almost all would admit that at some point in their careers they felt like lashing out, either verbally or physically, at a student or two. That was certainly my experience a few times during my 30 years in the classroom, but two things stopped me from ever being physically aggressive: the likelihood that I would lose my job, and, more importantly, the knowledge that I occupied a position of authority that carried with it profound responsibilities; to abuse that authority would have been a violation of the trust placed in me and also a repudiation of my own moral code.

Unfortunately, some police do not seem to be troubled in the least by such considerations. Deluded into thinking that their word and version of events is virtually sacrosanct, countless allegations have arisen over the years of police beatings of civilians; in the majority of instances, absent of corroborating evidence, the offending officers' versions of events have carried the day.

With the advent of camera-equipped cellphones and the proliferation of public surveillance cameras, that dynamic has been slowly changing, each publicly-posted video eroding both police credibility and public confidence in the job they are entrusted with. Two of a myriad of examples include the 2010 G20 Summit in Toronto and the recent killing of Sammy Yatim.

In the print edition of today's Star (I'll provide the link when the online column becomes available), Rosie Dimanno excoriates disgraced Barrie cop Jason Neville, recently sentenced to a one-year jail term for the unprovoked beating of Jason Stern outside of a Barrie mall on November 20, 2010. A public surveillance video (shown below) captures both the senselessness and the brutality of the beating inflicted by Nevill on what appears to be a totally passive and compliant Stern.

It also makes clear how extensively he perjured himself in his claims that Stern kneed him in the groin and was 'extensively intoxicated'.

What was at the root of this senseless attack? An ornament atop the mall's Christmas tree, accidentally broken by a friend of Stern.

I'll leave you with the video and a few choice word from Rosie's column to describe the guilty cop:

Thug. Liar. Bully. Disgrace. Felon.

The Irony Of Police 'Sensitivity'

Given the brutal manner in which some police officers discharge their authority, it always strikes me as just a tad 'precious' when they complain about how unjustly they are being treated whenever the press offers some criticism of their practices.

In responding to The Toronto Star's series, Police Who Lie, Mike McCormack, president of the Toronto Police Association, complains that the investigative project is a gross misrepresentation of police practices, and condemns it for using a presentation style disturbingly similar to the covers of tabloid magazines that grab your attention while you’re standing in the checkout line at the grocery store.

The sad truth is that the police have no one but themselves to blame when their behaviour is held up to public scrutiny and found wanting. And what McCormack fails to acknowledge is that the public has every right to know about misconduct which, in the case of the Toronto Police, has taken many forms, lying in court being only one of them.

Who, for example, can forget the wiretapping and surveillance conducted upon former Police Services Board Chair Susan Eng, done when Mike's father, William, was the Toronto Police Chief? Eng attributed this illegal activity to the fact that prior to becoming chair of the board, she had been a vocal critic of the police.

Then, as just another example, there was Craig Bromell, former head of the police union now being led by Mike McCormack. In cases of involving investigation by the SIU, Bromell told his members not to co-operate with its inquiries and threatened lawsuits against police critics. Such directives and threats hardly fostered an environment conducive to the public trust that the constabulary seems to believe is its due.

The infamous G20 misconduct, in which Toronto police played a key role, is well-knowned, attested to even by voices as credible as Steve Paikin's.

So I'm sorry that public scrutiny so-much disheartens Mike McCormack and his troops, but he is going to have to learn that because police wield so much power, they must be held to the highest standards, and if they want to avoid criticism, they are going to have to govern themselves by those standards.

Another Victory For The Star

As a direct result of their investigative series, Police Who Lie, The Toronto Star is once more contributing to the social good. The following is reported today's edition:

Ontario’s chief prosecutor will probe the issue of police officers who are found by judges to have lied in court.

Attorney General John Gerretsen made the announcement Monday following a Toronto Star investigation that found more than 100 cases of police deception in Ontario and across the country.

“The most important thing is that people tell the truth in court. The question really becomes: if a judge makes a serious comment (about an officer’s testimony) what should happen?” said Gerretsen.

As a citizen, I am heartened to know that solid investigative reporting is still being done at a time when most journals have abandoned it as a costly and quixotic pursuit.

The Star Continues To Shine A Light On Some Very Dark Places

A taser to the scrotum 10-15 times. A 'rear naked choke hold' (an arm around the throat, another behind the head and a knee in the back). A beating in a ditch. The suspect's 'crime'? Leaning out his window and shouting “Hey, baby!” to several Niagara Regional Police officers.

Thus begins the third part of the Star's investigation into police officers who abuse their authority and subsequently perjure themselves in court, usually with no subsequent punishment from their departments.

You can read all of the sordid details here.

Why The Star Is The Real 'Newspaper Of Record'

Those who regularly read The Toronto Star will hardly be surprised to learn that it has just won five National Newspaper Awards for the excellence of its reporting, reporting that often results in some real benefits to society. A new benefit appears to be emerging as a result of its two-part investigation into police who lie under oath.

While its response to the investigation could be cynically dismissed as a political one, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police now says that

... the justice system should report police officers who are found by judges to have lied, misled the court or fabricated evidence.

“If a judge perceives that an officer has not fulfilled his oath of honesty, a judge should report it to a police service. The national association would naturally support mechanisms that would ensure this happens,” said association spokesperson Timothy Smith.

Despite the dismissal of the series by Mark Pugash, who has basically said that The Star doesn't know what it is talking about and can't be taken seriously, the chair of the civilian oversight Toronto Police Services Board, Alok Mukherjee, told the Star he is troubled by this “serious issue” and wants something done to stop the lies from eroding the public’s trust in his police force.

At a time when the majority of mainstream media seem to be constrained by the agenda of their corporate masters, it is reassuring that The Toronto Star continues in unfettered fashion to pursue important work leading to a better Canada.

Police Who Lie Under Oath - Part 2

Part 2 of The Star series on the problem of police lying under oath is available on its website. Today's coverage examines the lack consequences for such behaviour, many departments seeming to prefer a see-no-evil, hear-no-evil kind of approach. And as per his function, the always pugnacious Mark Pugash, Toronto Police spokesman, accuses the Star of not knowing what they are writing about.

2012 - A New Year, But For Peel Police, The Malfeasance Continues

2011 was not a good year for the Peel police. Racial profiling, harassment of citizens and fabrication of evidence seemed to be the order of the day. The new year brings new dishonour to the force, this time in the form of perjury.

As reported in today's Star, members of the Peel drug squad lied in court about a beating they administered to a suspected drug dealer, Tan-Hung Dinh. Const. Ian Dann, along with constables Jason Hobson, Jay Kirkpatrick and Steve Roy, were part of a sting operation that for no apparent reason resulted in their thrashing Dinh inside of a hotel room. Dinh's lawyer, Leora Shemesh, applied to have the drug charges stayed or evidence excluded. She alleged there were numerous Charter violations during the arrest.

Having no choice but to throw out all charges except for one relating to possession of cocaine, Superior Court Justice Deena Baltman gave the following damning assessment of the officers involved:

“The police lied under oath in order to cover up (an) illegal search and persisted in their lying when confronted with the most damning of evidence. All these misdeeds were calculated, deliberate and utterly avoidable,” and then added,

“The police showed contempt not just for the basic rights of every accused but for the sanctity of a courtroom,” ... referring to four officers from the force’s drug and vice unit, who are involved in a multitude of other narcotics cases in Peel.

Despite the ordering of an internal investigation by Peel Police Chief Mike Metcalf, critics are not holding their breath that anything will change, given the failure of past investigations to yield any results. Indeed, one assumes if the force were really serious about cleaning up corruption, they would ask an independent force to investigate.

Perhaps the most damning indicator that nothing will change is that even though the judge's findings have been known to the Chief since last fall, the malefactors remain on active duty.