(This
column was published in the North
Shore News on
Sept. 2, 1998)
No justice
today for police officers
By Leo Knight
IT'S
been a year since an incident at the Roxy nightclub in Vancouver
stirred up a hornets nest of problems for the Vancouver Police
Department and new chief Bruce Chambers.
The
incident began with a fight inside the popular nightspot
precipitated by an out-of-control street hump named Dave
Davidson, a biker associate and the son of former Socred speaker
Walter Davidson.
Davidson
was tossed from the club for assaulting customers and the brawl
spilled out onto the sidewalk. When the police arrived, Davidson
was "taking on all comers." In fact, the first officer
on the scene, a female officer named Kate Yeo, was herself the
victim of an assault trying to control the melee.
Other
officers converged on the scene, and Davidson, kicking, punching
and fighting all the way, was taken into custody. Allegedly,
while being carried to the wagon he was struggling so much
officers dropped him.
In
February, following a lengthy internal investigation, which, my
sources tell me, yielded an abundance of conflicting evidence,
chief Chambers ordered the officers suspended. This without any
finding of guilt by any court or Police Act tribunal.
The
resulting outcry from within the department stung the chief and
he reinstated the officers, albeit on "administrative
duties," flying desks instead of patrol cars.
In
a move smacking of politics, criminal charges were then laid
against three officers alleging assault causing bodily harm. I
say the move reeked of politics because the chief was advised
against suspending the officers and when he did a mutiny almost
ensued. In my view the charges were laid to save face for
Chambers.
I
put this to Regional Crown Counsel Austin Cullen and he
emphatically denied any political interference by the chief.
Cullen said, "to be fair, you have to make a judgment on
the ultimate evidence of the case presented to the courts."
Fair
enough. But I have to wonder why the case is before the courts
in the first place.
Essentially,
according to sources within the department, there are
significantly conflicting statements from witnesses in the case.
Many of whom are civilians who were present at the club on the
night in question.
The
officers accused of the crime are devastated by the accusations.
They, to a man, are exemplary cops who still, despite being
kicked in the guts by this, care deeply about their jobs and the
city they serve.
It
has long been a cop's credo to dislike the internal process,
something they view as designed to do nothing more than screw
cops. As such, it is customary to use every right accorded to
them as citizens whenever they face these type of accusations.
This includes the right to silence.
But
in this case, not only did the officers cooperate at every step
of the way, believing they had done nothing wrong, the officers
even submitted to polygraph tests to verify their innocence. Not
surprisingly, they passed the lie detector tests. Surprisingly,
the case lingers on.
A
special prosecutor, former Crown counsel Colin Sweeney, was
appointed to steer the case as ad hoc counsel. He promptly
adjourned the case in April to review the circumstances. The
matter has now been set for trial in November. Two and a half
weeks of provincial court time, already at a premium, have been
set aside for the matter.
Davidson,
for his part, is a hulk of a man. He is well known to police for
his violent ways. He was convicted of assault this spring in the
trial resulting from his excesses at the Roxy that night. His
wrists were slapped, barely. He got an absolute discharge for
assaulting two police officers despite his lengthy record of
assault and violence.
Interestingly
enough, one of the officers he was accused of assaulting wasn't
even called at the trial. Why? Because he is one of the three
accused in this mess. He was told by the Crown, "it
wouldn't look good."
Last
week Davidson was again arrested. He was apparently smashing his
girlfriend's face into the deck of a boat. What a nice guy.
Clearly, a pillar of society whose word is inviolate.
Now,
none of this is to suggest that the police should not be held
accountable. Indeed, theirs is a public trust which should never
be minimized.
But
when I look at the recent discussions in this space outlining
the cases of officers convicted of assault in duty-related
incidents and getting sentenced to jail, and I might add, on the
most dubious of evidence, one has to wonder if the cops who work
in the underbelly of our cities are receiving anything
approaching equitable treatment at the bar of justice.
In
B.C., the only province with a charge approval system in which
the Crown has sole authority to bring a case before bar, the
measure of whether a charge is laid has to satisfy two main
factors: 1) is the matter in the public interest and 2) is there
a substantial likelihood of conviction.
Time
and again habitual criminals walk free because the Crown uses
these criteria to explain a "no charge" decision. Yet,
in the case I've outlined, it appears neither condition can be
satisfied and yet charges have been laid. Given the recent
decisions of the courts, these officers have jail to look
forward to if found guilty despite the apparent mountain of
conflicting evidence.
I keep hoping the pendulum will start swinging the other way and it will be the bad guys who have to fear court and the "justice" meted out. But I don't see it any time soon.
-30-