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."