'COVERUP' NEEDS ANSWERS

As statements by judges go, this one is pretty disturbing, and raises
some worrisome questions about Hamilton's police force: "I find the
collective evidence of the witness officers to be troubling. Their
inconsistencies in their version of the evidence and their apparent
inability or unwillingness to identify the person attached to the leg,
as most were easily serving in close proximity to the person who was
attached to it, strains credulity and raises the spectre of a coverup."

"Troubling ... inconsistencies ... inability or unwillingness ...
strains credulity ... the spectre of a coverup." So said Ontario Court
Justice Paul Currie, in acquitting this week a Hamilton police officer
charged with assault causing bodily harm to a refugee from Myanmar
during a botched drug raid.

On May 4, 2010, heavily armed members of the Hamilton tactical squad
mistakenly burst into the apartment of Po La Hay as he was cooking
dinner.

Hay, a 130-pound single father of three, sustained cuts and scrapes to
his face, three fractured ribs and a fractured vertebra after police
broke down his door, put a handgun to his forehead, handcuffed him and
saw to it that "a foot was applied to his left side, his rib area,"
according to one of the officers.

It was only afterward that police realized something had gone terribly
wrong; They had assaulted an innocent man and invaded the wrong
apartment. Moreover, none of the five officers in the kitchen with Hay
could positively identify which one "applied" the foot.

"It's a case about an excessive use of force," Crown counsel Elliot
Behar said during the trial.

That case is over, but now it is about something else.

Hamilton Police Chief Glenn De Caire stated after the judge's comments
this week that Hamilton police "are cognizant of both the ruling and
the commentary" and "accepts and respects the decision of the court."

The service has already "assessed our practices and procedures for
entries during search warrants" and has made changes in the wake of
the raid last year.

That is correct and that is comforting, but is it now enough, given
the nature of the judge's comments?

Does the chief not owe it to the citizens of Hamilton and his own
department to investigate further the "spectre of a coverup?" Would it
not be appropriate to appoint an outside investigator to look into the
matter and respond officially for the benefit of both the police force
and the community?

This is a serious matter. Police are trained in observation and
recollection, which is why their testimony is given more credence
during trials.

If we take the officers' testimony at face value, then surely some
remedial training is required.

If police don't address the concerns as a department, what kind of a
message are they sending both their own members and the citizens of
Hamilton? Surely something like this demonstrates a need for more
accountability and transparency from the force.