by Jason Tarnow | Aug 15, 2011 | Riots, Wheels Of Justice
In my last post, I briefly touched upon what was unfolding in the U.K. and the rioting that was spreading from London to many more of that country’s major cities. The violence and looting that was broadcast to the world was shocking to many. There were hundreds of reported arsons, thefts, burglaries, assaults, and even murders. David Cameron, the Prime Minister, and many other politicians made strong statements to the media on how order will be restored and those found to be responsible for these crimes will feel the full effect of the law. We heard similar cries from British Columbia’s politicians when Vancouver experienced its riot 2-months ago. However, what I found intriguing was the speed at which justice has been delivered in the UK compared to what was have seen in Vancouver.
In London, as the riot raged out in the streets, the courthouses remained open throughout the night to deal with those individuals charged with riot-related offences.There were bail hearings held and guilty pleas entered. And the sentences were heavy. However, In Vancouver, we have yet to have a single person charged with a riot-related criminal offence. This is quite perplexing to many when we have heard of people turning themselves in to the Vancouver Police admitting to their criminal conduct in the riot. Why would it take so long for rioters in Vancouver to be charged, especially when many have admitted their guilt to the police?
There is one significant difference between the manner in which charges are laid in Canada versus the U.K. that may explain the speed of justice delivered in each country. In Canada, police investigate a crime then make their recommendation of charges to Crown counsel, who then have to decide whether to approve the charges based on the evidence the police have gathered. In the U.K., police themselves lay the charges. It appears to be a much quicker, or streamlined process.
However, there is growing debate as to which country’s system is better, or more efficient. The general public in both countries wants to see rioters face swift and significant repercussions. In Vancouver, the passage of time with no charges laid has left the public wondering if our justice system is broken altogether. The Vancouver Police have said that they are still sifting through mountains of photos and video to ensure they have a careful and complete body of evidence for those whom are eventually charged. Vancouver citizens hear of how rioters have been dealt with in the U.K. and they are wondering why it is so remarkably different. But in the U.K., the Law Society has now warned judges to “not hand down rushed justice“.
Which system do you think is better: one that is swift and immediate or one that is more cautious and takes more time?
I think the swifter U.K. version provides greater immediate deterrence to the public but I also think that B.C.’s slower, more cautious system provides the justice system with a ‘sober second thought’ on how to properly sentence those before the courts. There are pro’s and con’s to each. I hope both countries can learn from one another and make improvements to each of their justice systems.
by Jason Tarnow | May 18, 2011 | Police
Yesterday in the news there were various reports that the Liberal Government is abolishing the current police complaint scheme that has existed in BC and switching it to a system that is one where police complaints are investigated and handled by a civilian-led commission, rather than ‘the police investigating the police’. This is great news for British Columbia, though it a LONG overdue. (Story here)
I know and fully appreciate that police officers have a very difficult job. I think we can all agree on that. The individuals who sign up for this job also appreciate that they will be held to an extremely higher standard in the manner in which they conduct themselves – on and off – the job. But it is when police officers stray from this high standard of conduct and find themselves embroiled in controversial actions that could see their conduct as disgraceful (a term found in the Police Act) or even unlawful, is when we need to carefully consider how to handle the situation.
When a police officer is charged with a criminal offence (such as assault, uttering threats, possession or distribution of illegal narcotics, impaired driving etc) most usually a police force from a different jurisdiction other than the one the accused works for will handle the investigation and correspond with Crown prosecutors.However, criminal charges against a police officer are often coupled with a Police Act investigation that will determine (separately from the criminal process) whether the officer’s actions violated that high standard of conduct that not only the Police Act stipulates, but that we as citizens expect from our police officers.
When these Police Act investigations occur, they are conducted by senior officers, either from within the same detachment as the subject of the complaint, or sometimes (often due to public outrage in recent cases) farmed out to a police force in another jurisdiction in an (lame) attempt to give off the impression that the investigation is “independent”. Right.
The Blue Wall
I’m writing about this topic because I have seen firsthand how our current police complaints procedures have failed us. Miserably. I will describe a case of mine as an example of how “police investigating police” just doesn’t work….
My client JW was leaving a pub on a Saturday night in the Kitsilano area of Vancouver when a rather agitated sergeant (Sgt. DT) from the Vancouver Police Department came on the scene in his police car and began yelling and swearing at people to “hurry up and go home”. My client (and numerous other witnesses) tells me that Sgt. DT drove his police car up on the curb of the sidewalk, threatened people over his loudspeaker, then exited his vehicle and began using his police baton in a very threatening and intimidating manner towards people. Please understand that these people were simple leaving the pub at closing time and trying to make their way home by walking, waiting for rides, and hailing taxi cabs. Oh, and I have the CCTV video to prove it. (actual story is here: http://tinyurl.com/63kfmme)
On the video my client is seen walking down the street, texting on his cell phone, when Sgt. DT comes sprinting at JW, full speed, and cross-checks him in the neck with his baton, sending JW flying on to his back, hitting his head on the sidewalk. JW suffered only minor injuries. Luckily.
Now, as I said, we managed to secure the CCTV footage of the event. We have 30 minutes of tape that shows a peaceful area, calm and order. The only person who acted violently was Sgt. DT, who we later learned was a 23-yr veteran of the VPD. We were all shocked.
Sgt. DT was convicted of assault and the courts did their job in handling Sgt. DT’s criminal matters. I am not going to go into detail about that process. It is the Police Act investigation that is an absolute JOKE.
We filed a complaint with the Police Complaints Commissioner and learned that the person who would be in charge of the Police Act investigation would be Sgt. JK, a 21-yr veteran of the Vancouver Police Department. “You have got to be fucking kidding me?!” I said to myself AND the Police Complaints Commisioner – on numerous occasions.
So here we have a 21-yr veteran of the VPD investigating a 23-yr veteran of the VPD. These are two senior officers who have worked alongside one another for virtually their entire careers. And Sgt. JK assured me that “I am confident that I can do this in an unbiased manner”. I called bullshit from the very beginning. (and I was right…. )
This was a high-profile case. Everyone in Vancouver read about it in the papers and it was splashed all over the news, largely because we had the incident “caught on tape”. I kicked and screamed to the Complaint Commissioner that this investigation could not properly proceed in this way. They disagreed, and let the investigation continue….
This incident happened about 18 months ago and the VPD investigators asked for, and was granted, extension after extension in order to complete his report. I had basically thrown my hands up and given up all hope on this file, when I got a surprising call from the Complaint Commissioner. He said that Sgt. JK had submitted his Report for final approval and that the Commissioner felt that there were many oversights within it, witnesses not properly interviewed, basically, it was garbage. The Commissioner then decided that this investigation had to be switched to someone new……… so they handed it off to someone else, this new investigator was ALSO a member of the VPD. I hope that you can see the sarcastic smile of disbelief on my face while you read this.
So one VPD investigator couldn’t do the job properly of investigating one of his colleagues of a serious complaint, so the Commissioner handed it off to another person within the VPD to tidy it up. Police cannot and should not investigate themselves. It does not work. If bias does not actually exist, it sure gives off the impression that it does exist or that it COULD exist.
The investigation is still ongoing. With the change of investigators, the VPD got another extension. 18+ months later I am more convinced than ever that we need a civilian-based investigation scheme when complaints are levied at the police.
Why do you think of the liberals proposals to change the system to a civilian-led body?
by Jason Tarnow | May 16, 2011 | Criminal Attorney
Our lawyers at Tarnow Criminal Law are dedicated to providing their clients with the best legal representation available. When you retain the services of our firm, you can expect to receive frequent correspondence, individualized attention, and professional wisdom at each stage of your case. They can explain your rights under the law so that nothing is left unclear or misunderstood. In addition, they are dedicated to building strong and compelling cases, and doing whatever is necessary to ensure a desirable verdict is achieved.
There is no question that your choice in criminal defence lawyer is not just important, it is personal. That is why we offer a free initial consultation to discuss your particular charges, giving you the opportunity to ask a skilled criminal defence professional any questions you have on your mind – and in a confidential setting. It’s important to take the opportunity to meet with a lawyer and go over the facts of your case before hiring one. By addressing your immediate concerns and helping you better understand the situation, we hope to make the decision regarding your legal counsel that much easier to make. It’s an opportunity to meet the lawyer who will be protecting your rights and freedom in the coming months.
