Ottawa, ON (Canadian Press) The Supreme Court of Canada has quashed the conviction of a British Columbia man for molesting three children, ruling that the RCMP “knowingly and deliberately” violated the Charter of Rights during their investigation.
In a 9-0 judgment Thursday, the court ordered a new trial for Dieter Wittwer, 73, described at a Kelowna, B.C., sentencing hearing two years ago as a pedophile who refused to admit the harmfulness of his behaviour.
Evidence before the high court showed that police made three tries before finally obtaining a statement from Wittwer that was later used against him at trial.
Prosecutors told the Mounties that neither of the first two statements would be admissible because they hadn’t properly advised Wittwer of his right to counsel or given him a chance to contact a lawyer.
At a third interview he refused to say anything for the first four hours, but finally spoke out when an RCMP sergeant told him he already knew about the incriminating statements made in the past.
Justice Morris Fish, writing Thursday for his unanimous colleagues, left the door open in principle for police to go back and conduct repeated interviews in such circumstances.
He also rejected a defence claim that police had an explicit obligation to tell Wittwer his previous two statements were legally inadmissible. That amounted to “legal advice” tendered to the RCMP by the Crown, said Fish, and interrogators didn’t have to share it with the suspect.
Nevertheless, Fish concluded there was fatal flaw in the way the third interrogation was conducted - the fact that the Mounties prompted Wittwer to talk by referring directly to the past, legally tainted interviews.
“The police knowingly and deliberately made use of an earlier statement that they themselves had obtained from the appellant in a manner that infringed his constitutional rights,” wrote Fish.
“This alone is sufficient to taint the following statement and to cry out for its exclusion.”
To rule otherwise, he said, would send a message that police are entitled to benefit from illegal actions. “And this, in my view, would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.”
Gil McKinnon, Wittwer’s lawyer, said the ruling won’t stop police from taking a second or third crack at suspects in future. “But they have to make a fresh start and not make any reference to the previous statement.”
Wittwer has already served a two-year prison term he was handed upon conviction in 2006.
He was also designated a long-term offender and ordered to remain under supervision for a 10-year probation period after finishing his jail time. But that order would effectively be quashed unless the Crown obtains a new conviction.
Wittwer was charged with sexual interference for fondling three girls, ranging in age from two to seven over a period of years while acting as their babysitter.
A forensic psychiatrist who assessed him described him as a pedophile who was in denial, and the judge who declared him a long-term offender warned he could be a threat to others in future.
Wittwer has left Kelowna since his release from prison, but McKinnon declined to say where he’s living now. He is still under the probation order pending a decision by Crown attorneys on whether to press ahead with a second trial.
8 responses so far ↓
1 chilled // Jun 5, 2008 at 20:39
Is this article a critique of the RCMP or the courts? Christ man, he is a convicted pedophile, to hell with his rights. if the RCMP did screw anything up, it was simply not administering a sever beating on this piece of excrement.
And the authorities and McKinnon arn’t notifying the public of his current location? What in the world is going on in this country?? We do know where McKinnon is though, don’t we??
2 Deepthroat // Jun 5, 2008 at 20:44
The only disrepute here is the stupid ruling by the Supreme Court. By all means let this vermin loose because of some minute technicality of reminding the scumbag he already confessed to molesting 3 little girls. Does wonders for my respect for the legal system. Perhaps his tea and crumpets were cold as well. Dastardly police.
3 God Rocks // Jun 6, 2008 at 14:42
Once again we see a police force that refuses to work within the confines of the law and it may show once again their attributes that the end always justifies the means but not this time it appears.
I think these nine judges showed courage that this kind of behavior will not be ignored any more. The Charter of Rights and Freedom is in place just for this kind of reason to protect the rights of individuals and should be followed to insure the success of these kinds of cases.
It seems that the more we hear about the kind of work this police force is doing, the more we begin to see that something is very wrong within that group of police officers and forcing officers to retire is not fixing the issue.
I mean I don`t hear all this kind of rubish flying around Canada from the rest of the Town and City police forces, so why them.
No wonder we have people wrongfully convincted and no one wants to hear about it. It took some lawyers for the Aid for the Wrongfully Convincted who cared enough to make a change in this kind of attitude; that police NEVER do any thing WRONG, EVER!
However, I do think if it continues unchecked by government as it has been that it will tricle into other police forces, kind of like the rotten apple in the barrel spoiling the rest of the apples.
The RCMP are by far suppose to be the highest police force in uniform in Canada and by such should be acting in the highest ethical manner and if they keep their eye on the ball they shouldn`t be making these kinds of mistakes we read about almost on a weekly basis.
I think these nine judges made a good ruling and found that the Charter of Rights and Freedom had been violated and this should be a call to the other judges accross Canada to take note and judge fairely according to the laws of Canada and if there`s any dought as to the credibility of the work of an investigator he should rule as such.
This good guy bad guy mentality shot out by police has to stop and we need to get right back to the basics…. there`s bad on both sides that needs to be dealth with.
Fix your own self before you try and fix others…. to put it another way take the log out of your own eye before you take the speck out of someone else` eye and then no one will be able to judge you as a hypocrite.
4 Simon // Jun 7, 2008 at 12:33
The headline is misleading. The case actually says “the police knowingly and deliberately made use of an earlier statement that they themselves had obtained from the appellant in a manner that infringed his constitutional rights under the Charter.” That’s far less sensational than what the media would have us believe.
And if you read the case, you will see that the Charter breaches on the first two statements are minor…the poor molester didn’t have sufficient access to a lawyer. Hardly a beating with phone books.
This is not an earth shattering case. It doesn’t break any new ground and certainly isn’t evidence of pervasive police ineptitude as God Rocks would have us believe. This case is an application of a previous decision and verifies that the criminal is no longer on trial; rather it is the police and the investigation that is put on trial. Looks like this system is working just great. Thank you Trudeau!
5 Deepthroat // Jun 7, 2008 at 17:11
First it was a split decision. Second, just how far are you willing to go to exonerate guilty individuals? This is a mere technicality. Would you go so far as to throw out murder charges for spelling mistakes? The legalities in this country change on a daily basis whenever some judge makes a statement of his opinion. Just because the Supreme Court says so does not make it sensible or right. Read the decision on the use of drug sniffing dogs recently put out by the SC. Cannot use a dog in an open bus station. How inane. Do not put blind faith the the legal system because it is just that another system run by people who are not infallible.
Before you trash the RCMP for not following the law try reading the cases. Most times the decree from the court comes after a decision is made in a gray area.
As for the wrongly convicted, just check and see how many of those were by the RCMP and how many by other Forces before you try and tarnish the RCMP further.
The reason you hear lots of RCMP information is because it has become a media pastime. They will eventually move onto somebody or something else. If you believe everything you read or hear without self discovery of the totality of the facts you foster the chicken little syndrome.
The RCMP are not the “highest police force in uniform” in Canada. What do you mean by that?
Chilled hits a very important point when he says that “to hell with his rights”. I am sure we do not want to carry that to the letter but, the severity of the offense that this scumbag perpetrated outweighs the small technical error that the police made. An error I might point out that it took all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada to get ironed out when the cops had very little time, no clear law, and no doubt huge pressure in such a disgusting case. Don’t you agree?
6 CstBentonFraser // Jun 8, 2008 at 17:32
When it comes to the media you have often heard the saying “All publicity is good publicity”.
The RCMP and the courts are pros when it comes to publicity and sending a message.
When they send out news releases THAT is a message.
When the courts hand down sentences you have often heard the media say “the judge is sending a message”.
What is the message being sent here with this case?
Where do we have an infestation of pedophiles?
Raise your hands.
You can see it plain as day.
Look at the judgment and look at the case. Who favors pedophiles?
I rest my case. Pretty simple isn’t it? Not only is the emperor wearing no cloths, he was wearing robes and likes kiddies.
7 Simon // Jun 8, 2008 at 21:32
By Benton’s rationale, our judges are not only pedophiles, but must also also drunk drivers, thieves, murderers, and fraud artists.
Actually, I would say our judges are worse than the combination of all those things….they are lawyers.
Judges aren’t there to judge guilt or innocence of the accused. They are there to judge the competition between the prosecutor and the defence lawyers to see who comes up with the better legal argument. The finding of guilt or innocence is the winner’s ribbon to the lawyers; it has nothing to do with exonerating the innocent, protecting the victims or punishing the guilty.
The media complains about the police not being held accountable, being able to investigate themselves, and the complaints process. What about judges? There isn’t any way to lodge a complaint against a judge for asinine decisions that are technically correct but devoid of common sense and out of touch with the public’s expectations. Judges have jobs for life and are never required to account for their decisions. Look at Wally Oppal’s decision to prevent Crown lawyers and Judges from having to testify at a Coroner’s inquiry.
I’m shocked at how little public interest there is in holding our Judges accountable. Maybe we should have a Judge Watch website.
8 CstBentonFraser // Jun 12, 2008 at 12:55
Simon, Simon, Simon…. are you insinuating that judges are not human?
Judges are prone to all facets of human behavior, there is not one aspect of human behavior that judges are not capable of. They have not been implanted with micro-chips to give them super-human abilities.
It is the public’s job, not the judiciary, to keep judges on the right track. If we see a judge continuously letting drunk drivers walk away without charges, if that judge constantly suspends convictions on drunk driving charges, if that judge gives light sentences on drunk driving charges what is the logical conclusion.
It’s not my rationale Simon, I am only stating the obvious. Read the story again, I will quote “To rule otherwise, he said, would send a message that police are entitled to benefit from illegal actions. “And this, in my view, would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.”
Sending messages? Letting people walk away from charges? Who committed the crime first and who benefited?
I am only stating the obvious, judges are human and as you yourself state,”our judges are not only pedophiles, but must also also drunk drivers, thieves, murderers, and fraud artists”.
When did they become angelic beings incapable of human shortcomings?
Did you read the judges rationale? I will give you another example of how liberals think and how it’s not normal.
“Welfare Hike Would Make BC ‘Magnet’ for Poor:
http://thetyee.ca/News/2008/05/05/PoorMagnet/
Another liberal with the same thinking as the judge. The judge admitted he was sending a message, read it right in the article. We don’t want people used as messenger pigeons. Do you understand? We want justice. The judge is focusing on messages when all we are asking for is justice.
It’s the same with Claude Richmond. He admits publicly that he is thinking about how NOT to pay people instead of how to pay people who are on disability and welfare.
Claude Richmond publicly admitted he’s penalizing those who are unable to work or have disabilities.Rather than hand down a judgement for the individual the judge, like Claude Richmond, admits he isn’t thinking of his fiduciary duty and the public’s interest.
The judge is not thinking of the victims right to justice. He’s thinking about sending messages on the backs of the victims and he admits that.
Claude Richmond isn’t thinking about homeless disabled people and starving welfare recipients, he’s only thinking about those who are not even on the benefits.
The judge isn’t thinking about handing down a correct judgement that would satisfy the victims, he says he’s only thinking about sending messages to others who are not even involved.
The Liberal’s idea of justice is all about twisting logic. If you think justice was served by a judge who admitted outright that he wasn’t even thinking about the victims but was focused on messenger pigeons, if you think Claude Richmond was thinking about how to help those suffering on welfare then I suggest you renew your Liberal Party membership and join their pride parade.
You must log in to post a comment.