A man “tortured” by a Toronto police officer to obtain a confession for a 2009 robbery has had his convictions stayed in a scathing judgment by Ontario’s top court.

Neil Singh and his alleged accomplice were deliberately intimidated, threatened, beaten and denied their right to counsel by police, wrote Ontario Court of Appeal Justice Robert Blair on behalf of the three-judge panel, noting “Canadian society cannot tolerate — and the courts cannot permit — police officers to beat suspects in order to obtain confessions. Yet, sadly, that is precisely what happened in this case. One of the two police officers who participated in the beatings apparently thought, as he said, that ‘it’s part of (his) job’ to do so.”

“Indeed,” he continued in a footnote, “the conduct in this case might well be characterized as ‘torture’ under the Criminal Code.

Neil Singh’s original trial lawyer, Fariborz Davoudi, was delighted by the

“remarkable” ruling.

“Obviously, this is Canada. This is not North Korea, and the police should not be resorting to these kinds of tactics. For the most part they don’t, but occasionally when it does happen, the message has to be sent,” he said, adding that the “right result was achieved” to send a message to police “bad apples.”

Singh was arrested along with Randy Maharaj several months after $350,000 worth of copper piping was stolen from a Crane Supply warehouse in Toronto. Both were charged with robbery and unlawful confinement.

When Singh was questioned in an interrogation room by Det.-Const. Jamie Clark and Det. Steve Watts, he denied involvement in the robbery and denied knowing Maharaj. The testimony of Singh and Maharaj on what happened next was not contested by the Crown or the police and the court considers it to be “the factual framework for what actually happened,” wrote Blair.

“Clark responded violently to these denials. He struck the appellant on the back of the head five or six times and kneed him in the ribs once or twice.” wrote Blair. The attack lasted two minutes.

The two officers left, and a third playing the role of the “good cop” came in. “Make sure (you have) something to say or else they’re coming back,” Det. Donald Belanger said.

When Clark and Watts returned, Singh said he was ready to talk — but continued to deny he had anything to do with the robbery.

This time, Clark “grabbed the appellant’s neck, squeezing his throat and slamming his head against the wall. He said to the appellant: “ ‘This is what it feels like when you wave guns in people’s faces.’ ”

Singh testified that he couldn’t breathe and was close to blacking out when Clark let go. Clark continued to punch him on the back repeatedly; when Belanger came back into the room, Singh was crying; “tell them something, tell them anything or else they’re going to come back,” Belanger told him.

Minutes later, Watts and Clark briefly brought Maharaj to the door of the interrogation room. Maharaj testified that Singh looked like he had been in a fight.

When Watts and Clark returned, Clark told Singh that his alleged accomplice had implicated him in the robbery.

When Singh continued to deny involvement, Clark began to beat him again on his back and head. He varied between an open and closed fist. Singh “testified he was in such pain at the time that he felt he could not go on and began to beg the officers just to kill him,” wrote Blair.

Clark returned alone, an hour later. “I am sorry for what I did to you. It’s part of my job,” he told Singh, then gave him a bottle of water, a chicken sandwich and a towel.

Singh then made a video statement that did not incriminate him. Maharaj underwent an even worse assault that left him with a fractured rib, and eventually confessed, though the Crown later stayed his charges.

When Maharaj denied being part of the robbery, Clark grabbed him “and dragged him into an adjoining room — undoubtedly one without a video camera — where he pushed Maharaj to the ground, fell on top of him, (and) began punching him in the ribs for an extended period of time,” wrote Blair.

“At the same time, (Belanger) attempted to grab hold of Maharaj’s leg and step on his testicles. (Clark) added an oral element to the intimidation and assault: he said, ‘Oh, you don’t want to make a statement? You don’t want to make a statement? You’re going to make a statement. We’ll make sure you make a statement … I hope you’re tougher than your buddy.’ ”

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

As the trial judge noted, Maharaj screamed loudly enough that someone opened the door, and the beating stopped.

Watts — playing good cop this time — later told Maharaj he should make a statement because, if he did not, Watts would not be able to protect him from Belanger and Clark. Maharaj testified that he agreed to make a statement in fear of another beating. If he made the statement, he was told to say he did not want counsel.

While Maharaj’s charges were dropped, Singh’s were not.

The trial judge ruled that, while the behaviour of the police officers was “reprehensible” it did not affect the fairness of the trial. She sentenced Singh to six and a half years, less one year due to the police misconduct.

However, the Court of Appeal found that in Singh’s case, the “misconduct is so egregious that the mere fact of going forward in the light of it will be offensive,” wrote Blair. The case for the stay was made even more compelling because the police did not respond at all to the allegations, noted Blair.

“What occurred here was not a momentary overreaction by a police officer caught up in the moment of a difficult interrogation. What occurred here was the administration of a calculated, prolonged and skillfully choreographed investigative technique developed by these officers to secure evidence,” he wrote.

“It would be naïve to suppose that this type of egregious conduct, on the part of these officers, would be confined to an isolated incident.”

The trial judge made plain in her ruling that the officers should be called to account, he wrote. The appeal court was told that an internal investigation was begun, but “that it ceased when the victims, not surprisingly, were unwilling to co-operate.”

Despite Blair finding that the two incidents indicate a concerning pattern of misconduct, the judges were not told of any charges, disciplinary measures or consequences that stemmed from the investigation, he wrote.

Lawyer Anil Kapoor, who handled Singh’s appeal, spoke to his client shortly after he was released from jail late Thursday. “He’s happy that the system worked, eventually, for him,” said Kapoor.

“Clearly it’s the right result,” Kapoor said. “The court was absolutely right when it said this kind of conduct by police officers just can’t be condoned in Canada.”

“I don’t think this type of conduct on the part of police officers is common, by any stretch of the imagination. But this was an unfortunate situation and I’m glad that finally justice visited my client.”

A family member said Singh did not want to speak to the media and would not be pursuing any civil action as a result of his ordeal.

Toronto police did not respond to requests for comment by deadline. Belanger was promoted to staff sergeant earlier this year; Clark is now a sergeant, according to the 2012 provincial “sunshine list,” which disclosed that both officers made more than $100,000 in 2011.

“Real life in the police services is not a television drama,” wrote Blair near the end of the ruling. “What took place here sullies the reputations of the many good officers in our country, whose work is integral to the safety and security of our society.”