Neal Hall and Philip Ling (Ottawa Citizen) – Within hours of the release of a report damning the Tasering of a Polish immigrant by RCMP officers in 2007 as “shameful” and unjustified, the B.C. government announced Friday the appointment of a special prosecutor to look into the circumstances of Robert Dziekanski’s death — opening up the prospect of criminal charges against the officers involved.
B.C. Attorney-Solicitor General Michael de Jong made the announcement Friday following the release of the final report by the Braidwood Inquiry, which reviewed the October 2007 Tasering and death of Dziekanski at the Vancouver International Airport.
In 2008, B.C.’s criminal justice branch announced that it would not approve any charges in relation to Dziekanski’s death because there was not a substantial likelihood of conviction.
However on Friday, following the release of the Braidwood report, de Jong said that “the circumstances here not just warrant, but require, a fresh look and a reconsideration of the decision made some time ago.”
Top Vancouver criminal lawyer Richard Peck has been brought in by the province to review a decision to not charge the four Mounties involved in Dziekanski’s death.
Peck has also been asked to examine the officers’ “statements to investigators and their testimony at the Braidwood Inquiry with a view to determining whether their conduct was at any time contrary to any provisions of the Criminal Code or applicable provincial legislation,” said a statement Friday from the criminal justice branch.
If he deems charges are warranted, he will prosecute the case.
Most recently, Peck was brought in by the Ontario government to review the charges against former Ontario attorney general Michael Bryant in connection to the death of a bicycle courier in downtown Toronto last August.
Commissioner Thomas Braidwood, a retired appeal court judge, bluntly condemned the “shameful conduct” of the four RCMP officers who, responding to a report of a violent drunk at the Vancouver International Airport in October 2007, repeatedly shocked Dziekanski with a Taser as he writhed in pain.
Braidwood quoted Dziekanski’s final words before his death, spoken in Polish: “Leave me alone. Did you become stupid? Have you gone insane? Why?”
“In my view, Const. (Kwesi) Millington was not justified in deploying the weapon against Mr. Dziekanski, given the totality of the circumstances he was facing at the time,” Braidwood said.
“Similarly, Cpl. (Benjamin) Robinson was not justified in instructing him to deploy the weapon.”
Braidwood dismissed as false the RCMP officers’ claims that they were forced to fight with Dziekanski.
“In my view they were deliberate misrepresentations, made for the purpose of justifying their actions.”
Dziekanski, who spoke no English and had never been on a plane before, was unable to find his mother upon arriving at the airport. He remained in a secure customs area for nearly 11 hours and then, appearing dazed and delirious, began throwing around furniture, prompting the 911 call.
Moments after four RCMP officers — Millington, Robinson, Const. Bill Bentley and Const. Gerry Rundel — arrived on the scene, Dziekanski was jolted five times with a Taser.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
7 
19
Face facts, without the video this would have been swept under the table.
I am truly disappointed that Mr Dziekanski’s mother dropped the law suit. The Braidwood Inquiry had limits to its jurisdiction and the civil suit would have NO limits.
Mr Dziekianski at no time threatened the officers in any way, they just took the easy way and used the Tazer over and over and over.
Tazers were removed from RCMP officers after this incident as too often used them as a first line of defence.
I do hope that Poland will lay charges against the officers involved in the death of Mr Dziekanski, this would make it impossible for them to travel to any EU country as they would be immediately arrested and Poland would ask for their extradition. Have travelled to Poland several times and met some very nice police officers who spend more time on their beat than the RCMP here in Canada. Not a joke, the easiest place to find a mountie where I live is in a Tim’s..
Hot debate. What do you think?
12 
16
D, I too have been to Poland. I don’t think I would want to see what their prisons are like….
I agree D, that tazers are too readily employed, which I believe is lazy police work.
Hot debate. What do you think?
7 
5
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
3 
10
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
10 
17
Try re-reading. Some of the charges called for by the off with their heads brain trust require intent. I did not specify that: “You seemed to indicate that charges won’t necessarily flow because of lack of intent… ” which means you did not understand the line: “Without a doubt the issue of charges should be revisited, now that the inquiry has issued its report, and presumably has acquired the totality of facts available in the incident.” Meaning if salient facts supporting CCC charges were unearthed, there could be a successful revisiting of the issue. AND: “However, unless there are facts arising from the inquiry that bear specifically on the possible charges, the outcome of the examination will remain the same.” Which means if no criminal evidentiary items were discovered, the original decision in the examination for charges would remain.
Obviously I took issue with your 222 contention and stated why: “The scheme of the homicide provisions is that this section (222) defines culpable homicide and then other provisions determine whether culpable homicide is murder, manslaughter or infanticide. The distinction is largely, although not exclusively, dependent on the intent accompanying the conduct which resulted in death.” Note the word intent in the reply. I guess I should of added that Mr. Lowe, subsequent to their analysis, said the actions of the officers may been seen as having contributed to his death, but they are considered lawful.
The reference to case law was to underline my point that although the written law in the CCC seems quite straight forward, it is really the case law that shapes it. That certainly applies to your assertions of 219 and 220 with the plethora of case law surrounding any negligence case.
The charges considered against the four RCMP officers were assault, assault with a weapon and manslaughter. You may wish to inquire, metaphorically speaking, why they only considered those charges, as perhaps you negligence suggestion was either not considered or dismissed outright with the facts at the time.
Return to the original decision:
The province’s criminal justice branch announced that there is not a substantial likelihood of conviction.
“In fact, the available evidence falls markedly short of this standard,” said Crown counsel spokesman Stan Lowe. Note the work “markedly”.
Now, you see, the reference by me to “facts” pertaining to “possible charges” could have been unearthed by Mr. Braidwood means that if in reality there were usable items, it could bolster the level referred to by Stan Lowe (up from markedly short). In addition, an examination of new information could spur perhaps a different area of examination, thus my reference to “The discovery of a possible early collusion to distort the subsequently accredited facts discovered in the inquiry however, could relate to other provisions of the Code.” I would caution you there that intent plays a role.
You reference me as : “Finally, you point out that the Code is enriched by the common law.” Hardly. “Enriched” is not a term that I used, nor would I support it for the description of the majority of recent case law. Prohibitive, restrictive, inane, counter intuitive perhaps, but certainly not enriched.
Does that clear it up for you? It would appear that brevity (half hearted in your lexicon) is lost/misconstrued on your interpretations of some of my points.
Hot debate. What do you think?
11 
13
I’m not sure what you’re getting at…
You seemed to indicate that charges won’t necessarily flow because of lack of intent… a vague proposition, but I can accept that none of the clowns intended death.
I indicated that intent wasn’t necessary for crim neg. which can lead to manslaughter (culpable homicide which is does not meet murder 1 or murder 2 requirements). Call it crim neg causing if you like.
You responded by half-heartedly talking about the differences between murder and manslaughter. Then drew from [i]R. v. Pinske[/i], which actually supports my assertion that intent isn’t required.
Finally, you point out that the Code is enriched by the common law. Good point, and one that I’m well aware of. I didn’t think it was necessary to talk about [i]R. v. Nette[/i] [2001] 3 S.C.R. 488, 158 C.C.C. (3d) 486 or [i]R. v. Sharp[/i] (1984_, 12 C.C.C. (3d) 428, 39 C.R. (3d) 367, 26 M.V.R. 279 (Ont. C.A.) or any of the subsequent cases because when you can use fewer words to get your point across, it works just as well.
Hot debate. What do you think?
13 
13
CCC: The scheme of the homicide provisions is that this section (222) defines culpable homicide and then other provisions determine whether culpable homicide is murder, manslaughter or infanticide. The distinction is largely, although not exclusively, dependent on the intent accompanying the conduct which resulted in death.
R. vs Pinske states that the foreseeability of the risk of death is not a factor which the jury should consider on the question of whether the accused’s conduct amounts to criminal negligence (220).
Although the actual wording of some of the Criminal Code provisions seem straight forward, you have to read the interpretations by the court in making determinations.
Without a doubt the issue of charges should be revisited, now that the inquiry has issued its report, and presumably has acquired the totality of facts available in the incident. However, unless there are facts arising from the inquiry that bear specifically on the possible charges, the outcome of the examination will remain the same. The discovery of a possible early collusion to distort the subsequently accredited facts discovered in the inquiry however, could relate to other provisions of the Code.
Stupidity is not a criminally relevant factor for convictions. It is however, used as an excuse in all manner of proceedings especially in sentencing.
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
19 
11
ss. 219 & 220 of the code do not require intent, only wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.
s. 222 (5)(b) subsequently opens the door for manslaughter.
Bottom line, no intent required, only stupidity which two of them seem to have in spades, at least according to Commissioner Braidwood.
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
14
Intent.
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
13
Why wouldn’t the RCMP officers be charged. They are not above the law, if it was anybody else the RCMP would be standing right there, ready to slap the cuffs on. According to the story there are several charges from murder to perjury that the officers face. If it wasn’t for the cell phone camera these officer could’ve made up any kind of story that fit their actions.
If they’re not charged then the whole country will have lost any bit of respect for the RCMP.
RCMP officers are NOT the law, they are law enforcement officers. Big difference, they just can’t do whatever they want.
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
15