Police Culture Won’t Change Overnight

It will take more than a video message from Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair to change the long-standing and deep-rooted culture across the city’s police service, says Toronto criminal lawyer Kevin Hunter.
A former cop and now an associate with Edward H. Royle & Associates, Hunter says while he commends the chief for addressing officers’ unacceptable behaviour, more drastic measures are needed.  Read Toronto Star
The video, sent to members of the Toronto Police, addressed instances including officers turning off dashboard cameras, being untruthful in court and racist remarks, the Star reports.
“The Toronto Police Services Board has sent a clear message to Chief Blair – that it’s time to shape up,” says Hunter. “Recent negative publicity, most of it deserved, has brought the Toronto Police Service (TPS) into focus. The board was strong in its message to the chief and because the accountability of the TPS starts and ends with him, Chief Blair has passed on that message by video to each and every one is his officers with an equally clear message: to raise to the standards reasonably expected of them by citizens.
“This is both encouraging, since the chief has taken action, but equally discouraging that it was necessary in the first place. This is the first time I’ve heard of the medium of video being used to mass communicate messages of such importance. At least this demonstrates his commitment to the message, but will the message be heeded?”
Hunter says after several recent, well-known events involving the TPS, confidence in the organization could be at an all-time low.
“Their reputation has taken a hit in recent years, especially since the G20. And a string of recent indiscretions could have further negative impact on employee morale,” he says. “Then comes the message from the chief. The real question is, will it change anything? Only time will tell, but it’s doubtful.”
The real issue, says Hunter, is police culture.
“A video message of condemnation lasting only a few minutes is probably not enough to change the long-standing culture of the self-proclaimed largest street gang in the world,” he says. “These issues will almost certainly continue to routinely manifest themselves especially under new public scrutiny.
“One of the truly enraging policing issues continues to be the police witness who perjures him/herself to ‘win.’ The recent Costain case is the latest judicial recognition of this phenomenon.”  Read Toronto Sun
“Not being truthful on the stand is nothing new – police culture has fostered an eternal regime of officers willing to take the stand and commit perjury in order to obtain convictions,” says Hunter.
“Officers who peddle stories or distort facts to accord with the law self-justify their actions ‘for the greater good.’ Cops are people, people tell stories for several reasons including increasing their perceived importance.
“The risk is low, too – Crown attorneys are supposed to report officers who fabricate, but Crowns are understandably reluctant to do so unless accompanied by an actual finding from the presiding judge,” he says. “So officers, accompanied by an immediate badge of credibility, are virtually immune from sanction and are able to falsely testify to get their guy.”
Hunter adds: “Unfortunately, it’s unlikely that the chief’s message will curtail this behaviour.”

"By Legalizing Marijuana, We’re Creating a Country of Young Drug Dealers"?

I have long been an advocate for the decriminalization of marijuana.  The merits of which or based on not only moral grounds, but also on economic justification.

I recently read an article which discussed the enormous revenue potential of regulating marijuana's distribution through legitimate means.  This is the article.  Below I write my initial, reactionary and impulsive thoughts on one aspect of the generally on-point piece.

In the article, Carla Lowe, founder of Citizens Against Legalizing Marijauna (CALM), a political action group in California, makes the following statement in opposition to marijuana's legalization:

“By legalizing marijuana, we’re creating a country of young drug dealers." 

This is the single most illogical statement I have ever read in the debate on marijuana legalization.  Not only is it illogical, it's downright idiotic.  This quite aside from the fact that she needs to get a life and take up a real cause.  But I digress.

So let's break down her theory.  As lawyers, or perhaps more correctly law professors, might say, "let's unpack this." 

Her quote seems to suggest that should marijuana be legalized, it would be open season for drug dealing.  That is, an epidemic of drug dealing youth, now free from legal constraint, would plague society, peddling their evil wares.

Ah yes, much like what happened when alcohol was legalized.  According to her theory, history should be rife with stories of young illicit booze entrepreneurs emerging on the scene at the end of prohibition.  These dastardly miscreants would have poisoned society to the core. 

Yet, that never happened.  History tells a different story.  There were no post-prohibition Al Capone types that I am aware of.

It seems to me that in Canada, we created a central distribution system, controlled by the government, which regulated the sale of alcohol and reeped the benefits of enormous taxation, much to the advantage of all Canadians.  Moreover, the stigma of illegality was removed.

The same could, and should, be the result of the systematic decriminalization and regulation of marijuana.  No longer would the user have to meet his "guy" out front of the local wherever to grab a weekend's worth of chill.  Nor would he have to suffer from the criminal stigma and inherent personal risk of the illicit transcation.  There would be no turf wars, no grow ops, no mass of illegal and often violent activity associated with drug dealing.  The user simply goes to the MCBO (Marijuana Control Board of Ontario) store and makes his purchase.  "That's $20 please.  Cash, debit or credit?" 

The government becomes the "drug" dealer and taxes the product accordingly.  Not to mention the job creation with respect to cultivation, transport, sales, etc.  The street dealer becomes obsolete.  The illegal marijuana trafficker and grower follow down the road of past distant memories.  Voila.
 
In Canada, there would simply be no "country of young drug dealers."

Then again, her comment has to be understood in the context in which it was made.  She's part of organization which appears to be a (fear-based-and-in-need-of-something-better-to-do?) citizen arm of the United States' war on drugs.  How's that working out for ya? 

That's enough for now.  This subject gives me a headache.

Flawed Crown policy contributes to clogged courts

Story about my recent trial on Advocate Daily

A recent jury trial over allegations of domestic abuse should have never seen the courtroom, Toronto criminal lawyer Kevin Hunter says.

While he is pleased with the verdict, Hunter, an associate with Edward H. Royle & Associates, says there weren’t reasonable grounds to charge his client in the first place.

“It’s somewhat of an indictment on the Crown’s decision to proceed on a case like this in spite of the suspicious circumstances which surrounded both the nature and timing of the complaints,” says Hunter. “It’s at the expense of a two-week Brampton jury trial in a jurisdiction which is already having trouble accommodating trials with actual merit.”

Hunter’s client, a father of four, was found not guilty of 2 charges of domestic assault and mischief.
“The family had a long history with the Children’s Aid Society (CAS), dating back to 2001,” says Hunter.

In May 2010, the couple had long separated, and the children were living with their mother. Based on comments one of the kids made at school, the CAS began investigating again, he says.
After the CAS investigation, the woman made the abuse allegations against her husband, and reported the information to police with the encouragement of the CAS, says Hunter.

“My first thought was the timing of the police report was suspicious given that it was made on the same day that the CAS told her that she should report the allegations to police. I began to think she was deflecting blame away from herself and on to my client because she was fearful of losing her kids, as had happened before.”

Hunter had also obtained a sworn affidavit from a prior court proceeding involving child custody issues, where the woman admitted to making false allegations in the past.

At the trial, says Hunter, the mother, father and children testified, and while the children claimed to have witnessed the alleged assaults, they later admitted their mother had told them what to say. After a short period of deliberation, the jury came back with a not-guilty verdict.

“My client was relieved to have the false accusations against him determined in his favour, and the jury saw that the person making the allegations was essentially a liar with a clear motive to fabricate.”

The outcome was favourable for Hunter and his client, but the case represents a larger issue, he says.
“My reaction was this never should have been in court to begin with,” he says.

A former police officer himself, Hunter says he has concerns over a government policy that mandates police to lay a charge where they have reasonable grounds to believe an offence has been committed in a domestic relationship.

“There’s got to be something more than the story of someone claiming criminal conduct against a former partner in circumstances where there’s no photographic, documentary, or independent testimonial evidence which might show injuries or a hospital visit … all the police have to go on is somebody’s story,” says Hunter. “The police have to employ a little more scrutiny on these types of cases and not just to proceed based on what someone says.”

The “constant delay and overburdening issue” in the courts makes the situation more crucial, says Hunter.

“I think if the police investigated the incident thoroughly, they would have had some doubt about the authenticity of the complaints, especially given their timing,” he says. “Had the officers really scrutinized what the children said, they would have seen that they were clearly influenced by their mother to perpetuate her lies.”

Hunter says the policy puts officers in a difficult position: “They are fearful that if they don’t lay a charge, they could face negative sanctions, so they err on the side of caution of laying a charge.”
If a charge isn’t laid and a complainant is subsequently badly injured or killed, the officer is then “on the hook for their decision,” says Hunter. Instead, officers “pass on the responsibility of making a decision to the Crown – it’s a safety-first, liability-based policy.”

While he was happy with the result of the trial, Hunter says he feels it was a shameful waste of ever diminishing court resources.

“The real losers here in the end, other than the court system being clogged, are the kids who have to go into court and testify,” he says. “They testified from a separate room via video, but they had to come and tell their manipulated stories against their dad again, and it just became very obvious that mom had fed them information about what to say. That’s really unfair to both my wrongfully accused client accused and more so to his kids.”