Taking the stand in his own defence earlier this year, Toronto police sergeant Christopher Heard had adamantly denied the allegations of two young women with strikingly similar accounts of being groped by him, an officer they’d trusted, inside his police car.

“Absolutely not,” Heard said during his June trial, when asked if he inappropriately touched the inner thigh of a 27-year-old woman he’d picked up in the Entertainment District in September, 2015.

“Not once” he’d said when questioned on whether he’d similarly sexually assaulted a 25-year-old woman inside his police vehicle less than six weeks later.

The vehement denials didn’t pass muster with Ontario Court Justice Russell Otter, presiding over Heard’s judge-alone trial on two counts of sexual assault.

The “blunt and terse denials of inappropriate touching” lacked in reliability and credibility, the judge ruled, finding much of Heard’s evidence to be “not credible.”

But Otter had significant doubts, too, about the reliability of the two complainants’ accounts — concerns sufficient enough to dismiss the charges against the longtime Toronto police officer at a Scarborough court Wednesday.

Heard, a 46-year-old married father of three, hugged his wife and supporters when Otter announced the not-guilty finding after reading out his lengthy judgment to a full courtroom. The officer later left the courthouse without comment.

Heard has been suspended with pay since the second sexual assault charge was laid in May 2016. It was not immediately clear Wednesday whether Heard will return to active duty; the officer is still facing professional misconduct charges stemming from the case.

While clearing Heard of criminal charges, Otter levied harsh criticism at the officer for his conduct, chastising him for “egregious” and “brazen” behaviour that included failing to turn on his in-car camera both times he picked up the women to drive them home.

Otter noted in particular that Heard knew he was under criminal investigation by Ontario’s police watchdog, the Special Investigations Unit (SIU), in connection to the first alleged sexual assault — “yet he conducted himself in a highly similar fashion with (the second complainant) . . . He offered a lone intoxicated female a safe ride home in his police vehicle with all police recording equipment shut off.

“Such blatant conduct defies common sense and risks his professional career.”

Gary Clewley, Heard’s lawyer, acknowledged the judge’s criticisms about Heard’s professionalism but said, overall, his client is happy and relieved. He called Otter’s judgment “lengthy and thorough.”

Asked whether Heard would be picking up lone women and offering them rides home, Clewley said no — “those days are over,” he said.

Neither of the complainants, whose identities are covered by a publication ban, were in court Wednesday.

The two complainants, strangers to one another, had come forward with “strikingly similar” accounts, Otter said, adding there was no evidence of collusion.

Both women testified that they had trusted Heard when they accepted his offer of a ride home, believing they were safe with a police officer.

“I expected to trust an officer of the law,” said one of the alleged victims.

Otter nonetheless found the testimony of the first complainant was inconsistent with her friend’s account of the night, including how much she had to drink. The judge also ruled that the 27-year-old complainant had “antipathy” toward the police and “this strongly felt sentiment significantly, in my view, affected her overall credibility and reliability.”

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

The young woman’s evidence was insufficient to find Heard guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the judge ruled.

Otter came to the same conclusion concerning the second complainant, who alleged she was assaulted on November 1, 2015. Citing among his reasons phone records that directly contradict her evidence, the judge found the 25-year-old woman’s testimony inconsistent.

“I find that I have reasonable doubt as to whether the sexual assault occurred,” he wrote.

At the time of the incidents, Heard was supervising a group of constables in downtown Toronto’s 52 Division, but had been working alone on the shifts in question.

In both cases, Heard did not inform Toronto police dispatch that he was transporting a young woman home. “I should have. It just didn’t seem like a big thing . . . I wasn’t going to be gone for long,” he testified.

Heard is still facing misconduct charges under the Ontario Police Services Act in connection to the September incident, including not activating his in-car camera, a failure that means there is no audio or video evidence of his contact with the first complainant.

Heard also faces a misconduct charge related to his failure to record all of his interaction with the 27-year-old woman in his police notes.

Indeed, as criticized by Otter, Heard only made notes about his interaction with that woman after he was advised that the SIU had opened an investigation into his conduct that September night.

“His failure to abide by police policies and protocols in the use of police equipment defies logic and common sense. I agree with the Crown that such a failure created the opportunity to engage in wrongful conduct that would go undetected,” Otter wrote in his decision.

A Toronto police spokesperson confirmed Heard is also facing further professional misconduct allegations in connection to the November 1 incident, but the details were not available by press time Wednesday.

Wendy Gillis can be reached at wgillis@thestar.ca

Read more about: