POLICE BLAMED FOR DRUG PROBE DELAYS

Force Wanted To Sweep Corruption Investigation Under Carpet, Attorney
For Complainants Says

A Crown attorney's warning that the prosecution of six drug squad
officers was in jeopardy because Toronto police weren't doing enough
to help is indicative of a broader desire within the service to
"sweep it all under the carpet," says the lawyer who represented two
original complainants.

"My greatest concern is the way the investigation was stacked against
the prospect of any finding of systemic corruption or misconduct,"
Peter Biro said yesterday.

The largest police corruption case in Canadian history collapsed in
January after a judge tossed out the charges, blaming the "glacial
pace" of the prosecution for denying the accused their right to a timely trial.

The Crown has since appealed.

Less than two years earlier, Milan Rupic, chief counsel on the case,
who works at the attorney general's Crown law office, wrote a letter
to RCMP Insp. Peter Goulet of the Special Task Force that conducted
the original three-year, $8 million investigation.

In it, Rupic said the Toronto Police Service was not carrying its
weight to ensure the case would be ready for trial

"A day of reckoning is upon us. Frankly, I am skeptical that the TPS
is capable of marshalling the necessary resources to do what is
necessary on a case of this type," Rupic wrote in the March 29, 2006 letter.

Rupic was also dismayed by the selection of an officer who was
supposed to become "the new detective sergeant, but who possessed no
case management experience. This is not a case for inexperienced
officers; they will get eaten up alive."

He also noted the police work to date had been "barely satisfactory"
for the purposes of the preliminary inquiry, adding the investigative
team is "exhausted and in the process of retiring and so far there as
been no orderly transfer of responsibilities to a new team."

Three years earlier, then-RCMP Chief Supt. John Neily, who led the
special task force, had written to the Crown law office about
problems he said he was experiencing.

"The Toronto Police Service has and continues to put significant
resources into this investigation, literally into the millions of
dollars," he said in his March 17, 2003 letter.

"Yet each time an issue is raised requiring a response from your
office, I have to meet with a new attorney, bring them up to date on
the complexities of this case and then await the next crisis ..."

Biro said he believes Neily and others on the task force "wanted to
get to the truth." But he said Neily's final report, made public last
week, shows he wasn't allowed to operate independently. "The
appointment of the task force was as much an exercise in public
relations and an effort to shield the force from the public scrutiny
that a public inquiry would have brought to bear ..."

He points to a section in Neily's report that discusses allegations
against another group of drug squad officers that weren't probed.

At Queen's Park, Attorney General Chris Bentley wouldn't comment
because of the appeal.

"There is going to be a very public review of the circumstances that
led to the trial judge's decision in the specific case," he said.

"It'll be heard in a very public forum, in the Court of Appeal, which
will examine the history, facts and circumstances. ... We've taken
steps to expedite that."