(CBC News) – The Crown should review a decision not to charge the four RCMP officers involved in the death of Robert Dziekanski at Vancouver’s airport in 2007, says a special prosecutor.
Richard Peck was appointed to review the Braidwood report, which followed an inquiry into Dziekanski’s death and the police use of Tasers.
His recommendation that charges should be reconsidered was made public Tuesday in a release issued by the province’s criminal justice branch.
Peck was named special prosecutor by B.C.’s attorney general on June 18, immediately after former judge Thomas Braidwood issued his final report on Dziekanski’s death. The Polish immigrant died after being stunned with an RCMP Taser several times.
The criminal justice branch issued a statement in 2008 saying a thorough review of the evidence against the four Mounties involved showed that criminal charges were not warranted.
The branch said Tuesday that Peck recommended the new review because “factual material that was not available” during the initial review was revealed during the Braidwood inquiry, which held hearings between January and September 2009.
In his report, Braidwood said the RCMP’s repeated use of a Taser on Dziekanski was not necessary.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
8 
18
Maybe I did express myself correctly in my previous message DT or it was taken out of content, I don’t know…
I was referring to the actions of the officers in BC after the call came in and they responded to the airport, what was done there and said after Robert was tasered leading up to and after the investigation and what was released to the media which forced this inquiry to begin with to get to the truth.
Instead of striving to make things right, the investigators and leadership supported the officers actions which seemingly mislead the BC Attorney General into believing these officers actions were appropriate.
Then we have the matter of the media and how they are used to relay information to the public to disarm any concerns they may have pointing instead to the victim as the cause of his demise…. would this be clearer?
My concern is that when officers gather evidence, which could go against another officer or officers, there has to be a conflict of interest and in so doing we put our officers in a position that they should not be placed into. So would it not be wiser to take off our beliefs that anyone in such a situation will do what is right 100% of the time and take off our blinders to this deception and demand accountability and expect someone without any military pressure to step in and do this right, gather the evidence necessary to make the call one way or the other and to preserve the evidence, if there’s any cause for court, just as if it was someone from the public.
We hear of charges being laid and the crown throwing them out for lack of evidence. I thought cases regarding police officers would first have to go to the crown before any charges were laid. So why is it they get dismissed after they have been charged?
Maybe I’m lacking insight here.
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
17 
6
Of whom do you speak? The evidence gathered by the Braidwood inquiry is public and the special prosecutor Mr. Peck has the report, and access to all relevant documentation.
Who do you feel will attempt to rewrite the plethora of information already solicited by, and printed by, the Braidwood inquiry? Are you suggesting that Mr. Braidwood has hidden information that has been given and recorded in a public forum with innumerable independent witnesses?
Or are you suggesting that the information, already in the public domain, will mysteriously vanish if Mr. Peck decides there is substantial evidence to proceed with charges?
Who is appointing investigators? Mr. Peck reviews the totality of evidence on his own, and then renders an opinion with respect to further proceedings.
Maybe you should get your free copy before it all mysteriously disappears:
http://www.braidwoodinquiry.ca/report/
Hopefully it is not engulfed in a time sensitive self destruct program that engages prior to your completing the read.
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
15
So what is new?
Do you really think they will gather and present EVIDENCE that shows them to be wrong or at fault? The answer is simple, not on your life.
Even in the face of video evidence they will attempt to re-write the incident and not admit doing wrong. Giving us the assumption that they are right 100% of the time they assure the public by appointing their own investigators to gather the evidence which will likely never point to something done wrong or gone wrong.
The reports could be lacking, be hidden or the evidence could go missing before it all gets to an inquiry or goes to court…. so there are levels and stop gaps in place to make sure they are never found at fault and disciplined.
The public is wrong 100% of the time when facing the officers and it looks like the officers are right 100% of the time.
Maybe someone has some statistics to add here.
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
19 
11