The arrest of four senior Toronto Police Service officers for perjury and obstruction of justice last week is a significant first step in holding accountable officers who have been found to have lied in court. It is a rarity in Canada for officers to be charged with perjury even though the problem, as revealed by the Star’s 2012 “Police Who Lie” series, is systemic and not a “bad apples” phenomenon.

Indeed, as far back as 1994, the famous Mollen Commission investigating police corruption in New York City observed “[t]he practice of police falsification … is so common … that it has spawned its own word: “‘testilying.’”

The conduct of the Toronto officers arrested was brought to light in Justice Ed Morgan’s decision in R v Tran. Justice Morgan was satisfied that the police planted evidence and lied about their involvement in order to ensure that their conduct survived constitutional scrutiny.

This is not the first time that a trial judge has found that the police lied, tailored, deliberately fabricated or concocted their evidence at trial. Indeed, in a recent article I document 12 cases in Ontario from 2011-2013. Moreover, in 2014-15, there are, in addition to R v Tran, five other cases of police testilying that have received media attention. In a number of these cases, the impugned officer was a repeat offender. It is an extraordinary thing for a judiciary that has traditionally been deferential to the police to make such bold and disturbing findings.

What is particularly troubling is that the overwhelming majority of these cases involve black or racialized accused. In these cases, the police had no reasonable grounds for either the detention or search and were likely relying on stereotypical assumptions or racial profiling as the basis for their suspicions. Once again those most vulnerable to police misconduct face yet another manifestation of unequal treatment — a greater police willingness to lie to secure a conviction.

While, as noted by the Mollen Commission, officers may lie because they believe it necessary to ensure that drugs or guns don’t get excluded because of unconstitutional conduct, the harm caused is tremendous. Not only is public trust significantly eroded but it will be very difficult for the Crown to secure convictions in any future cases involving officers who have been identified by the judiciary as liars. In addition, there is a very real danger that lying and obstructing justice will extend beyond cases where hard evidence is found to weak circumstantial-evidence cases leading to wrongful convictions.

What additional steps need to be taken? I have six suggestions.

First, Toronto Police Chief Mark Saunders needs to broaden the scope of his special investigative task force to include all cases over the last five years where judges have made findings of misconduct against officers. If he refuses, Yasir Naqvi, Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, needs to call a public inquiry to identify the scope of the problem and the necessary responses.

Second, the Attorney General of Ontario needs to conduct a review of the policy implemented in 2012 requiring Crown Attorneys to report cases involving judicial findings of lying or concoction.

Third, since many of the cases involve federal drug prosecutions, the federal minister of justice needs to implement a similar protocol for the Department of Justice. Both of these protocols need to include obligations on Crowns to vet cases involving officers who have been flagged and ensure adequate disclosure to the defence.

Fourth, prosecutors need to ensure that the defence has full disclosure of relevant police evidence involving officers’ interaction with the accused including, for example, copies of dispatch calls or other communications and computer generated or searched information.

Fifth, there needs to be a zero-tolerance policy initiated that would call for the dismissal of any officer found guilty in disciplinary or criminal proceedings of lying in court or obstructing justice.

And finally, our courts need to overrule a dated precedent that prevents defence counsel from cross-examining police officers on prior judicial findings of testilying so they can be taken into account in assessing the officer’s credibility.

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

Chief Saunders’ promise to rebuild trust and to probe the arrested officers’ past cases was a bold and courageous first step in bringing accountability to police who lie and attempt to obstruct justice. Let’s not lose this rare opportunity to address the problem in a meaningful manner.