Source:OPS
04/06/2010
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Friday, June 4, 2010 3:50pm
(Ottawa)—As a result of charges laid by the Ottawa Police Service in February of this year, the Ontario Provincial Police will be re-commencing a 2008 court case against an Ottawa Police officer due to the officer failing to comply with conditions of a peace bond.
In November of 2008, an Ottawa Police officer was charged by the OPP with partner related assault, mischief and uttering threats to damage property. In June of 2009, the charges were stayed by way of a peace bond.
The Ottawa Police will not release the name of the officer in order to protect the victim’s privacy and prevent further victimization, as the charge relates to a domestic situation. We would request the media consider this when reporting on the matter.
The officer is scheduled to appear in Cornwall Court on June 10, 2010.
The Ottawa Police will not disclose any further information on this case in light of the fact that this matter is now before the court.
- 30 -
For information:
Media Relations Section
Tel: 613-236-1222, ext. 5366
critter cartoon
Friday, June 4, 2010
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Police officer suspended
Source:Chatham Daily News
A Chatham-Kent Police Service officer has been suspended following allegations of misconduct under the Police Services Act of Ontario.
Const. Stan Blonde, a six-year veteran of the service, is suspended with pay. He is facing 10 allegations under the act including one count of deceit, two counts of discredible conduct and seven counts of neglect of duty, CKPS said in a news release.
The charges are the result of an investigation by the professional standards branch of the service.
CKPS said several of the charges were laid as a result of the officer's interactions with the public and the alleged misuse of police service resources.
Blonde faces a Police Services Act hearing. A date hasn't yet been set.
A Chatham-Kent Police Service officer has been suspended following allegations of misconduct under the Police Services Act of Ontario.
Const. Stan Blonde, a six-year veteran of the service, is suspended with pay. He is facing 10 allegations under the act including one count of deceit, two counts of discredible conduct and seven counts of neglect of duty, CKPS said in a news release.
The charges are the result of an investigation by the professional standards branch of the service.
CKPS said several of the charges were laid as a result of the officer's interactions with the public and the alleged misuse of police service resources.
Blonde faces a Police Services Act hearing. A date hasn't yet been set.
OPP officer charged, suspended for uttering threats
Source:TBNEWS
A North West Region OPP officer has been charged with uttering threats, police confirmed Tuesday.
The charge follows an investigation by the OPP’s Professional Standards Bureau. It follows an incident that took place in Terrace Bay on May 30.
Few details have been released about the alleged incident, but police say Const. Gregory Sutton, 40, was charged with a count of uttering threats. Police also seized six long guns and two handguns from the officer’s residence, which resulted in two counts of unauthorized possession of a firearm.
The Constable has served with the Schreiber detachment of the OPP for about eight years. Police say the constable was off duty at the time of the incident and that the seized firearms are not related to his duties as a police officer.
Sutton has been suspended from active duties.
Sutton will appear in the Ontario Court of Justice in Thunder Bay on July 5.
A North West Region OPP officer has been charged with uttering threats, police confirmed Tuesday.
The charge follows an investigation by the OPP’s Professional Standards Bureau. It follows an incident that took place in Terrace Bay on May 30.
Few details have been released about the alleged incident, but police say Const. Gregory Sutton, 40, was charged with a count of uttering threats. Police also seized six long guns and two handguns from the officer’s residence, which resulted in two counts of unauthorized possession of a firearm.
The Constable has served with the Schreiber detachment of the OPP for about eight years. Police say the constable was off duty at the time of the incident and that the seized firearms are not related to his duties as a police officer.
Sutton has been suspended from active duties.
Sutton will appear in the Ontario Court of Justice in Thunder Bay on July 5.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
OPP officer Charged...
Source:SIUOntario Provincial Police Officer Charged
MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO--(Marketwire - May 31, 2010) - The Director of the Special Investigations Unit (SIU), Ian Scott, has reasonable grounds to believe that an officer with the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) Port Credit detachment committed a criminal offence in relation to an incident involving a 24-year-old woman. Director Scott has caused a charge to be laid against the officer.
The SIU was contacted on January 8, 2010, regarding a complaint of a sexual nature against an officer with the OPP. The alleged incident occurred on December 21, 2009. The SIU was notified that on this date, the woman was stopped for driving infractions. During her interaction with the officer, the woman alleged she was sexually assaulted.
As a result of the SIU investigation, Constable Justin Maguire of the OPP is facing one charge of Sexual Assault, contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
The officer is required to appear before the Ontario Court of Justice at 2201 Finch Avenue West in Toronto on June 28, 2010. The Justice Prosecutions branch of the Ministry of the Attorney General will have carriage of the prosecution.
As this matter is now before the courts, and in consideration of the fair trial interests of the charged officer and the community, the SIU will make no further comment pertaining to this investigation.
The SIU is an arm's length agency that investigates reports involving police where there has been death, serious injury or allegations of sexual assault. Under the Police Services Act, the Director of the SIU must
•consider whether an officer has committed a criminal offence in connection with the incident under investigation
•depending on the evidence, lay a criminal charge against the officer if appropriate or close the file without any charges being laid
•report the results of any investigations to the Attorney General.
MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO--(Marketwire - May 31, 2010) - The Director of the Special Investigations Unit (SIU), Ian Scott, has reasonable grounds to believe that an officer with the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) Port Credit detachment committed a criminal offence in relation to an incident involving a 24-year-old woman. Director Scott has caused a charge to be laid against the officer.
The SIU was contacted on January 8, 2010, regarding a complaint of a sexual nature against an officer with the OPP. The alleged incident occurred on December 21, 2009. The SIU was notified that on this date, the woman was stopped for driving infractions. During her interaction with the officer, the woman alleged she was sexually assaulted.
As a result of the SIU investigation, Constable Justin Maguire of the OPP is facing one charge of Sexual Assault, contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
The officer is required to appear before the Ontario Court of Justice at 2201 Finch Avenue West in Toronto on June 28, 2010. The Justice Prosecutions branch of the Ministry of the Attorney General will have carriage of the prosecution.
As this matter is now before the courts, and in consideration of the fair trial interests of the charged officer and the community, the SIU will make no further comment pertaining to this investigation.
The SIU is an arm's length agency that investigates reports involving police where there has been death, serious injury or allegations of sexual assault. Under the Police Services Act, the Director of the SIU must
•consider whether an officer has committed a criminal offence in connection with the incident under investigation
•depending on the evidence, lay a criminal charge against the officer if appropriate or close the file without any charges being laid
•report the results of any investigations to the Attorney General.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Five-year OPP officer charged following car crash
Source:ctv.ca
A 31-year-old Ontario Provincial Police constable is charged with failing to yield after a marked police cruiser crashed into a westbound vehicle as the cruiser made a U-turn, police say. Both vehicles were severely damaged in the incident.
The crash took place around 2:30 p.m. Saturday as the OPP officer inside the vehicle was trying to stop an eastbound vehicle on Highway 7 near Carleton Place, at Townline Road.
No one was injured in the collision.
Jonathan Bigford, 31, was charged with failing to yield under the Highway Traffic Act. No court date has been announced and the police continue to investigate the crash.
This is the second crash in recent days involving an OPP officer. In an unrelated incident, Organized Crime Enforcement Bureau officer John Oke was involved in a single-vehicle crash on Highway 62, north of Belleville, on Friday. His injuries were described as serious and the crash is under investigation.
A 31-year-old Ontario Provincial Police constable is charged with failing to yield after a marked police cruiser crashed into a westbound vehicle as the cruiser made a U-turn, police say. Both vehicles were severely damaged in the incident.
The crash took place around 2:30 p.m. Saturday as the OPP officer inside the vehicle was trying to stop an eastbound vehicle on Highway 7 near Carleton Place, at Townline Road.
No one was injured in the collision.
Jonathan Bigford, 31, was charged with failing to yield under the Highway Traffic Act. No court date has been announced and the police continue to investigate the crash.
This is the second crash in recent days involving an OPP officer. In an unrelated incident, Organized Crime Enforcement Bureau officer John Oke was involved in a single-vehicle crash on Highway 62, north of Belleville, on Friday. His injuries were described as serious and the crash is under investigation.
Off-duty police faces impaired driving charge
Source: The Spec
May 30, 2010
An off-duty Hamilton police officer is facing a charge of impaired driving following an incident in Waterloo Region early Sunday morning.
Kevin Farrell, a two-year member of the Hamilton Police Service, has been charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle.
Early today, Waterloo Regional police stopped a vehicle on the belief that the driver was impaired.
The 26-year-old Stoney Creek man was released and will appear in Cambridge court on June 24.
Farrell has been suspended from operational duties with Hamilton police until further notice.
May 30, 2010
An off-duty Hamilton police officer is facing a charge of impaired driving following an incident in Waterloo Region early Sunday morning.
Kevin Farrell, a two-year member of the Hamilton Police Service, has been charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle.
Early today, Waterloo Regional police stopped a vehicle on the belief that the driver was impaired.
The 26-year-old Stoney Creek man was released and will appear in Cambridge court on June 24.
Farrell has been suspended from operational duties with Hamilton police until further notice.
Toronto Police win CAJ secrecy award
Source: CAJ
MONTREAL, May 29 /CNW/ – The Toronto Police Service has won the Canadian Association of Journalists’ 10th annual Code of Silence award, given annually to the most secretive government agency in Canada.
“The finalists this year were all dedicated to stifling the public’s right to know, but the Toronto police richly deserve this dishonour for the sheer stamina they exhibited in trying to stymie the release of information of clear public interest,” said CAJ President Mary Agnes Welch.
The CAJ’s judges were appalled by the Toronto Police Service’s tenacious refusal to release to the Toronto Star data on arrests and details of incidents in which police stopped and documented encounters with citizens without laying charges. The police waged a seven-year legal battle with the Toronto Star, fighting the release of the information right up to Ontario’s highest court, which ultimately ruled for the Star.
The data formed the basis of a groundbreaking 2009 series in the Star called Race Matters. The Star is still appealing the $12,000 in programming fees charged by the police after the data was ordered released.
The winner was announced at the CAJ’s annual awards gala during its national conference in Montreal Saturday night.
MONTREAL, May 29 /CNW/ – The Toronto Police Service has won the Canadian Association of Journalists’ 10th annual Code of Silence award, given annually to the most secretive government agency in Canada.
“The finalists this year were all dedicated to stifling the public’s right to know, but the Toronto police richly deserve this dishonour for the sheer stamina they exhibited in trying to stymie the release of information of clear public interest,” said CAJ President Mary Agnes Welch.
The CAJ’s judges were appalled by the Toronto Police Service’s tenacious refusal to release to the Toronto Star data on arrests and details of incidents in which police stopped and documented encounters with citizens without laying charges. The police waged a seven-year legal battle with the Toronto Star, fighting the release of the information right up to Ontario’s highest court, which ultimately ruled for the Star.
The data formed the basis of a groundbreaking 2009 series in the Star called Race Matters. The Star is still appealing the $12,000 in programming fees charged by the police after the data was ordered released.
The winner was announced at the CAJ’s annual awards gala during its national conference in Montreal Saturday night.
Bryant walks
Source:Now
Cloud hangs over cyclist’s death despite dropping of criminal charges against former AG
By Enzo Di Matteo
Former Attorney General Michael Bryant was the picture of composure when he walked into a conference room of the Sheraton Centre Hotel Tuesday afternoon, May 25, to read a statement and take questions from the media about the dropping of criminal negligence and dangerous driving charges against him in the death of bike courier Darcy Allan Sheppard.
Pouring himself a glass of water without so much as a hint of nerves – no shaking of the hand or quiver of the lip you might expect at a public moment of reckoning – Bryant calmly and confidently stared down the assembled with the aplomb of a seasoned political pro.
The only hiccups in the carefully orchestrated event: his answers to the questions he knew would be coming about the night last August when Sheppard died – slammed into a fire hydrant while hanging onto Bryant’s car after a minor car-bike collision and a shouting match.
Why did Bryant keep his foot on the accelerator when Sheppard was clinging to the car? Why afterwards did he drive his damaged car to a nearby hotel? Why did he not call police immediately?
We still don’t know, really.
All Bryant could say, before his PR adviser put a stop to this line of questioning, was that it all happened very quickly: 28 seconds.
This moment was meant for contrition, but little of that emotion was shown, much like in the hours after the August 31 incident when Bryant emerged showered and suited from the cop shop, a team of crack PR spinners from Navigator working for him behind the scenes, to read a prepared statement to the press.
From what Bryant said Tuesday, it sounds like he wouldn’t have done anything differently that night except maybe linger a few minutes longer at the Danforth resto he and his wife visited earlier that evening to celebrate their anniversary.
Small consolation for Sheppard, whose vilification in the media continues. It’s now being reported that besides wrestling with the demons of alcohol addiction and childhood abuse, Sheppard may have had psychiatric problems.
It’s hard to figure who’s been on trial in the intervening months, given some of the details that have emerged in the press about Sheppard’s life, through leaks or otherwise – a final indignity from a society that, from cradle to grave, failed the victim here.
Much is being made of the fact that his blood alcohol level was twice the legal limit on the night he died.
And he’d had other run-ins with motorists in the weeks leading up to the incident involving Bryant.
It was the latter point that Richard Peck, the special prosecutor from BC recruited to review the case, seized on to conclude that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and charges against Bryant should therefore be dropped.
Peck explains it this way in an 11-page summation read into the record in court: “No one is entitled to commit a criminal offence because the victim of that offence has a prior criminal record or has engaged in past aggressive conduct. No one ‘deserves’ to have a criminal offence committed against him, regardless of his background or prior conduct.
“The deceased’s propensity for aggressiveness or violence, however, is relevant to considering whether the accused was attacked by the deceased and to show the probability that the deceased was the aggressor in the altercation.”
The alleged prior incidents, half a dozen in all, aren’t exactly air-tight from a defence point of view, but Sheppard’s not here to defend himself, so they’re the only truth, besides Bryant’s version, the Crown seems to have relied upon.
One of these incidents several years ago involved a 76-year-old woman who may have cut him off in traffic. She described Sheppard as “like a mad man” when he chased her car on his bike afterwards.
Another involved allegations made by a woman about a cyclist weaving aggressively through traffic whom she believed to be Sheppard.
A third person who told her story to prosecutors alleged that she witnessed a cyclist riding erratically and appearing to reach into the driver’s-side window of a car to grab the steering wheel. She thinks the cyclist in question could have been Sheppard, but was not absolutely certain.
About the only concrete evidence against Sheppard – that is, evidence that didn’t involve individuals who saw his picture in the paper and went to the Crown with their stories – are photos taken by an onlooker from an office building above an incident in which Sheppard is shown hanging onto a vehicle.
But whether any of these incidents and others would have been admissible in court had the Bryant charges gone forward is debatable.
It’s arguable that none of them are material to the charges.
Sheppard’s actions involving other motorists, whatever they may have been, should have little or no bearing on whether Bryant’s actions behind the wheel of the car that night were justified. Any good lawyer can tell you that. NDP justice critic Peter Kormos has pointed out as much.
It’s Bryant’s actions that are supposed to be on trial, not Sheppard’s. But in this case, most of the onus seems to have been placed on the shoulders of the guy who ended up dead.
The legal test missing in Peck’s legal appraisal is whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charges against Bryant. Clearly, it was.
Bryant is a high-profile person who was charged with very serious offenses. It should have been left to a judge and/or jury to decide whether his actions constituted criminal behaviour.
As Kormos rightly pointed out in his own press conference Tuesday, “It’s important for justice not only to be done but to be seen to be done.”
Would an average citizen have been accorded the same latitude by the Crown?
Obviously, the cops had grounds – or thought they did – to lay charges.
It’s unlikely they would have jumped the gun on this one, given the media scrutiny the case received because Bryant is a former cabinet minister.
So what happened?
Bryant pled self-defence, telling prosecutors he accidentally hit the back of Sheppard’s bike when the latter veered in front of him while he was driving on Bloor, and then stalled his car when he tried to restart it to move away.
At that point his car lurched forward, hitting Sheppard and causing him to land on the hood. Yet the Crown found that Sheppard “was agitated and angry, without any provocation from Mr. Bryant or his wife,” who was riding in the passenger seat.
Bryant said he panicked and tried to get away as Sheppard tried to climb into his vehicle.
Several eyewitnesses reported seeing Bryant’s car violently swerving and driving onto the sidewalk to dislodge Sheppard from the car.
Peck says their accounts of the accident “vary considerably,” including reports that Bryant was driving at a speeds of 60 to 100 kilometres an hour.
According to expert analysis, says Peck, the vehicle was travelling at about 34 km/h when a fire hydrant on the sidewalk caught Sheppard on his left side, dislodged him from the car and he struck his head on the curb or raised portion of the roadway.
Bryant’s vehicle travelled about 100 metres with Sheppard on it.
But Peck says there was none of the “proof of a reckless or wanton disregard of the lives and safety of others” on Bryant’s part required for a conviction.
Bryant insisted that his is not a story about class, privilege or politics. He said the justice system “bends over backwards” to avoid any perception of impropriety when high-profile people like him are arrested.
“Nobody’s above the law,” he said.
Only there will be no trial, so we can’t judge for ourselves.
enzom@nowtoronto.com
NOW | May 27-June 3, 2010 | VOL 29 NO 39
Cloud hangs over cyclist’s death despite dropping of criminal charges against former AG
By Enzo Di Matteo
Former Attorney General Michael Bryant was the picture of composure when he walked into a conference room of the Sheraton Centre Hotel Tuesday afternoon, May 25, to read a statement and take questions from the media about the dropping of criminal negligence and dangerous driving charges against him in the death of bike courier Darcy Allan Sheppard.
Pouring himself a glass of water without so much as a hint of nerves – no shaking of the hand or quiver of the lip you might expect at a public moment of reckoning – Bryant calmly and confidently stared down the assembled with the aplomb of a seasoned political pro.
The only hiccups in the carefully orchestrated event: his answers to the questions he knew would be coming about the night last August when Sheppard died – slammed into a fire hydrant while hanging onto Bryant’s car after a minor car-bike collision and a shouting match.
Why did Bryant keep his foot on the accelerator when Sheppard was clinging to the car? Why afterwards did he drive his damaged car to a nearby hotel? Why did he not call police immediately?
We still don’t know, really.
All Bryant could say, before his PR adviser put a stop to this line of questioning, was that it all happened very quickly: 28 seconds.
This moment was meant for contrition, but little of that emotion was shown, much like in the hours after the August 31 incident when Bryant emerged showered and suited from the cop shop, a team of crack PR spinners from Navigator working for him behind the scenes, to read a prepared statement to the press.
From what Bryant said Tuesday, it sounds like he wouldn’t have done anything differently that night except maybe linger a few minutes longer at the Danforth resto he and his wife visited earlier that evening to celebrate their anniversary.
Small consolation for Sheppard, whose vilification in the media continues. It’s now being reported that besides wrestling with the demons of alcohol addiction and childhood abuse, Sheppard may have had psychiatric problems.
It’s hard to figure who’s been on trial in the intervening months, given some of the details that have emerged in the press about Sheppard’s life, through leaks or otherwise – a final indignity from a society that, from cradle to grave, failed the victim here.
Much is being made of the fact that his blood alcohol level was twice the legal limit on the night he died.
And he’d had other run-ins with motorists in the weeks leading up to the incident involving Bryant.
It was the latter point that Richard Peck, the special prosecutor from BC recruited to review the case, seized on to conclude that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and charges against Bryant should therefore be dropped.
Peck explains it this way in an 11-page summation read into the record in court: “No one is entitled to commit a criminal offence because the victim of that offence has a prior criminal record or has engaged in past aggressive conduct. No one ‘deserves’ to have a criminal offence committed against him, regardless of his background or prior conduct.
“The deceased’s propensity for aggressiveness or violence, however, is relevant to considering whether the accused was attacked by the deceased and to show the probability that the deceased was the aggressor in the altercation.”
The alleged prior incidents, half a dozen in all, aren’t exactly air-tight from a defence point of view, but Sheppard’s not here to defend himself, so they’re the only truth, besides Bryant’s version, the Crown seems to have relied upon.
One of these incidents several years ago involved a 76-year-old woman who may have cut him off in traffic. She described Sheppard as “like a mad man” when he chased her car on his bike afterwards.
Another involved allegations made by a woman about a cyclist weaving aggressively through traffic whom she believed to be Sheppard.
A third person who told her story to prosecutors alleged that she witnessed a cyclist riding erratically and appearing to reach into the driver’s-side window of a car to grab the steering wheel. She thinks the cyclist in question could have been Sheppard, but was not absolutely certain.
About the only concrete evidence against Sheppard – that is, evidence that didn’t involve individuals who saw his picture in the paper and went to the Crown with their stories – are photos taken by an onlooker from an office building above an incident in which Sheppard is shown hanging onto a vehicle.
But whether any of these incidents and others would have been admissible in court had the Bryant charges gone forward is debatable.
It’s arguable that none of them are material to the charges.
Sheppard’s actions involving other motorists, whatever they may have been, should have little or no bearing on whether Bryant’s actions behind the wheel of the car that night were justified. Any good lawyer can tell you that. NDP justice critic Peter Kormos has pointed out as much.
It’s Bryant’s actions that are supposed to be on trial, not Sheppard’s. But in this case, most of the onus seems to have been placed on the shoulders of the guy who ended up dead.
The legal test missing in Peck’s legal appraisal is whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charges against Bryant. Clearly, it was.
Bryant is a high-profile person who was charged with very serious offenses. It should have been left to a judge and/or jury to decide whether his actions constituted criminal behaviour.
As Kormos rightly pointed out in his own press conference Tuesday, “It’s important for justice not only to be done but to be seen to be done.”
Would an average citizen have been accorded the same latitude by the Crown?
Obviously, the cops had grounds – or thought they did – to lay charges.
It’s unlikely they would have jumped the gun on this one, given the media scrutiny the case received because Bryant is a former cabinet minister.
So what happened?
Bryant pled self-defence, telling prosecutors he accidentally hit the back of Sheppard’s bike when the latter veered in front of him while he was driving on Bloor, and then stalled his car when he tried to restart it to move away.
At that point his car lurched forward, hitting Sheppard and causing him to land on the hood. Yet the Crown found that Sheppard “was agitated and angry, without any provocation from Mr. Bryant or his wife,” who was riding in the passenger seat.
Bryant said he panicked and tried to get away as Sheppard tried to climb into his vehicle.
Several eyewitnesses reported seeing Bryant’s car violently swerving and driving onto the sidewalk to dislodge Sheppard from the car.
Peck says their accounts of the accident “vary considerably,” including reports that Bryant was driving at a speeds of 60 to 100 kilometres an hour.
According to expert analysis, says Peck, the vehicle was travelling at about 34 km/h when a fire hydrant on the sidewalk caught Sheppard on his left side, dislodged him from the car and he struck his head on the curb or raised portion of the roadway.
Bryant’s vehicle travelled about 100 metres with Sheppard on it.
But Peck says there was none of the “proof of a reckless or wanton disregard of the lives and safety of others” on Bryant’s part required for a conviction.
Bryant insisted that his is not a story about class, privilege or politics. He said the justice system “bends over backwards” to avoid any perception of impropriety when high-profile people like him are arrested.
“Nobody’s above the law,” he said.
Only there will be no trial, so we can’t judge for ourselves.
enzom@nowtoronto.com
NOW | May 27-June 3, 2010 | VOL 29 NO 39
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
No more taxes after HST...I promise!
They had No Choice!
They wore these or I took away thier toys for 7 days!
No kidding!
"Damn Street Racer"pays with Brusies
