Pubdate: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 Source: National Post (Canada) Copyright: 2008 Southam Inc. Contact: http://www.nationalpost.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/286 Author: Chris Wattie and Kelly Grant, National Post Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?216 (CN Police) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?236 (Corruption - Outside U.S.) DELAY DERAILS POLICE CORRUPTION CHARGES Victory for Six Toronto Officers A judge has thrown out corruption charges against six Toronto police officers, citing the 10-year delay in bringing their case to trial and sharply rebuking Crown prosecutors for what he called "the glacial progress of this prosecution." Defence lawyers said it was a victory for the officers who were investigated as part of the longest and most expensive police corruption probe in Canadian history, at a cost of more than $3-million. Justice Ian Nordheimer, of Ontario Superior Court, yesterday stayed a total of 29 charges against the officers, all former members of the Toronto police drug squad, because of the long delay. "I repeat that no explanation for the glacial progress of this prosecution has been offered," the judge said, reading his lengthy ruling. "In the absence of such an explanation, given the amount of time that has passed ... I have concluded that the delay in this case is unreasonable and constitutes a violation of each of the [defendants] rights under ... the Charter." The officers had applied to the judge to throw out the charges, citing the Charter's guarantee of their right to be tried "within a reasonable time." Their trials were set to begin this month, more than four years after they were charged and nearly 10 years after the investigation began into allegations of corruption on the Toronto police central field command drug squad. Staff Sergeant John Schertzer, Constable Steven Correia, Constable Joseph Miched, Constable Raymond Pollard, Constable Ned Maodus and Constable Richard Benoit were charged after an RCMP-led task force conducted the investigation. They were accused of obstruction of justice, attempt to obstruct justice, perjury, assault causing bodily harm, extortion and theft for allegedly falsifying their notes and internal police records, giving false testimony in court and to obtain search warrants and failing to account for evidence seized from crime scenes, such as drugs or money. All the allegations involved confidential informants and drug dealers, at least one of whom alleged he was assaulted by the police in an effort to obtain information. The officers had earlier been charged with several other counts related to alleged corruption involving a fund to pay police informants, but those charges were also dropped. When the judge announced his ruling, at the end of a long, intricately detailed set of legal reasons, the six officers and a small group of their family and friends gave a collective gasp of relief and hugged each other and their lawyers. Judge Nordheimer laid the blame for almost all of the delays on the Crown prosecutors in the case, citing their failure to disclose evidence to the defence lawyers for months or even years after the six officers were charged. "I have strived to find any sense of urgency on the part of the prosecution in this case, or any apparent recognition that this case was teetering on the precipice of unreasonable delay, and a resulting effort to move this matter forward more quickly, more efficiently and more proactively," he said. "I can find none on the record before me. Rather, the record creates an impression of complacency, or perhaps a lack of awareness to the situation." Judge Nordheimer cited the disastrous effect the charges and the long delay in bringing them to trial has had on the officers and their families as a factor in his decision, noting that all of them were experienced police officers with "unblemished records" before the charges were laid. "They now bear the burden of the worst accusation imaginable to a police officer, namely being labelled a 'dirty cop,' " he said. "Their service as police officers has either actually, or for all realistic purposes, come to an end ... they have now lost their desired and chosen career." The judge acknowledged that in staying the charges, "not without considerable reluctance I will add," he was ending the case on an "unsatisfactory" note, particularly for the public and the unanswered questions about corruption on the Toronto force. But he added: "In this case the public might fairly question why it has taken until 2008 to even approach the start of a trial on alleged misconduct by police officers that occurred, for the most part, in 1997 and 1998," he said. Lawyer John Rosen, representing Staff Sgt. Schertzer, who is now retired from the force, said outside court that the ruling was not the complete vindication that his client was seeking, but was a victory nonetheless. "These officers are pleased that the matter has come to end," he said. "They are saddened by the fact that they weren't able to face their accusers and be vindicated in the courtroom. But the main thing is that they have suffered and suffered enough and that's what the court has found." Defence lawyer Peter Brauti said the delay put the officers through personal and professional turmoil. "Nobody should have to go through any kind of allegation for 10 years, I don't care what it is. It's just way too long," he said. "To give it some perspective, when this case started I was in law school. That's how long this has been going on." Some of the accused officers are still facing internal charges, but spokesmen for the Toronto police would not say what will happen with those charges. "That's up to the Chief," Mr. Rosen said. "You'll have to ask him. I would hope they'd be at the end." Crown prosecutors have 30 days in which to decide whether or not to appeal the ruling. Chris Bentley, the Ontario Attorney-General, said prosecutors were reviewing the decision and he would not comment on the specifics of the case. "We need to make sure that cases proceed through the courts as quickly and effectively as possible," he said. John Tory, the leader of the opposition Conservatives, called it "absolutely a disgrace" that the charges were stayed. "It brings disrepute on the justice system to have charges of any kind thrown out in this way," he said. "We see instance after instances all around the province, charges are being dropped, cases thrown out because of delay ... and it has to be fixed. he said. He called for an inquiry into the delays. Dave Wilson, the president of the Toronto Police Association, said the force must now start thinking about reinstating the accused officers. In 2003 the officers sued top police officials, including then-chief Julian Fantino, Crown prosecutors and provincial ministers for malicious prosecution. The lawsuit is pending. [sidebar] ALLEGATIONS In his ruling, Justice Ian Nordheimer laid out the allegations. - Obstruction of justice alleges "a warrantless search of an individual's apartment by some of the applicants resulting in the seizure of drugs and charges being laid against the individual. Those officers then allegedly falsified their notes to hide the fact that the search had been conducted before a search warrant had been obtained." - Attempt to obstruct justice and perjury alleges "another warrantless search of another individual's apartment by all of the applicants prior to the actual obtaining of a search warrant. It is further alleged that some of the applicants subsequently gave false evidence regarding that fact at a preliminary inquiry." - Attempt to obstruct justice and perjury alleges "that some of the applicants falsified their notes to portray a source of information to them as a confidential informant when actually the individual had been directed to engage in certain actions relevant to the arrest of a suspected drug dealer thus converting the individual from a confidential informant into a police agent. It is further alleged that some of the applicants subsequently gave false evidence at a preliminary hearing regarding these matters." - Assault, extortion, theft over $5,000 alleges "that some of the applicants assaulted an individual in order to extract information from him regarding the location of his drugs and monies. It is further alleged that some of the applicants obtained information from the individual's mother regarding funds that belonged to her son but that were in her safety deposit box and that some of the applicants subsequently obtained a search warrant for the safety deposit box, seized a large quantity of cash from it but then failed to account for the full sum of money that had been seized." - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake