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.

 

More On Ulmar Zameer

H/t Graeme MacKay 

Yesterday's post highlighted the rush to judgement many people embraced when Ulmar Zameer was charged with murdering a police officer. People like Doug Ford, John Tory and Patrick Brown condemned the fact that he was granted bail. A publication ban prevented the reasons for the bail from being published, but anyone could have gone down to court to find out why bail was granted. Justice Malloy had declared the evidence very weak, and hence the bail.

But populism has its own reasons, and it is generally more politically profitable to stoke the fires of rage and bitterness than to be reasonable. Witness PP's meteoric rise in the federal polls.

Nonetheless, public opinion is variable, and there were many, including me, very much relieved that Zameer has finally achieved justice, often a rare occurrence in this fractured world. Of those who stoked the fires, many are demanding accountability.

Congratulations to Justice Anne Malloy. She analyzed the evidence in the complex Umar Zameer case thoroughly. She instructed the jury in a clear and concise manner. Through her efforts, the jury came to logical conclusions and acquitted. To top it off, Justice Malloy had the good grace to apologize to Zameer and his family on behalf of the public for the ordeal through which they had been put. She demonstrated a fine example of how justice should be administered. Truly a class act.

Bill Howes, Toronto

My faith in the Canadian justice system has been restored. Notwithstanding the deep hurt suffered by the family of Toronto police Const. Jeffrey Northrup, it is clear this was none other than a tragic accident. What we need to now see is an apology from those politicians — Premier Doug Ford, and former Toronto mayor John Tory and Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown — who so quickly and publicly assumed Umar Zameer’s guilt without knowing the full facts of the case. 

Jack Fearnall, Owen Sound

John Tory states all we can do from this experience is “learn.” Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown completely avoids the issue, Premier Doug Ford, as usual, remains silent. Not one has the decency to admit their error and apologize. But there is something each of us can do, donate to the Zameer GoFundMe program. Money cannot bring back all that the Zameer family has lost, but it can help erase the enormous financial burden. It can also reinforce the fact that Canadians actually do care.

Keith Perrott, Toronto 

Given how Mr. Ford has recently been demanding judges who will bring down the hammer on those those accused of serious crimes, a reader offers this thought:

First, I would like to address the profound need for public apologies to Umar Zameer from Premier Doug Ford, former Toronto Mayor John Tory and Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown for their unfounded accusations when he was released on bail. This should be front page and detail what they said so that the public is aware. As Zameer’s lawyer, Nader Hasan pointed out, we expect more of public officials than their stoking of hatred and tribalism when they pretend to know the facts and we, the public, do not. 

Related to Ford’s words in this case, is his desire to fill the judiciary with his “like-minded” judges whom he believes will “get tough” as their first priority, rather than seek a fair and just trial based on the facts and reasonable truths, as we observed in this trial.

We, the public, need to challenge, along with those of the legal professions, Ford’s efforts to undermine our judiciary, one of the foundations of democracy. And, reflecting on what Zameer said after the trial, we want to be able to say, in the future, that we are a fair and just country, for all. 

I wish the Zameer family peace going forward.

Penny Sartor, Toronto 

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.