(CBC News) – A lawyer who failed to disclose a controversial email has quietly resigned as the Mounties’ legal counsel at the inquiry into Robert Dziekanski’s death, after RCMP in B.C. jolted him with a Taser stun gun in 2007.
Helen Roberts withdrew from the Vancouver-based Braidwood inquiry in June and was replaced by another lawyer from the federal Department of Justice.
The change came after Roberts made a tearful apology at the inquiry for failing to disclose an RCMP email that suggested the four Mounties who responded to a call to Vancouver International Airport made plans to stun Dziekanski with a Taser before they saw him.
Dziekanski, a Polish immigrant, died in the airport’s arrivals lounge in October 2007 after being stunned.
Roberts had said the failure to disclose the email was an accidental oversight.
Before the email was revealed, the four officers had stated under oath that they had not discussed using the stun gun before arriving at the airport.
The email, from RCMP Chief Supt. Dick Bent to assistant commissioner Al McIntyre, said that: “Finally, spoke to Wayne and he indicated that the members did not articulate that they saw the symptoms of excited delirium, but instead had discussed the response en route and decided that if he did not comply that they would go to CEW.”
The “Wayne” mentioned in the email is Supt. Wayne Rideout, then head of the Integrated Homicide Investigation Team investigating Dziekanski’s death. CEW refers to a conducted energy weapon, the RCMP name for a Taser-type weapon.
Roberts gave a tearful apology, saying it was simply an accidental oversight.
Her admission brought new suspicions of a coverup and caused a costly three-month delay to the inquiry on the day it was to begin winding down.
The commission had been scheduled to begin hearing closing arguments on June 19, but after learning of the email, commissioner Thomas Braidwood announced the inquiry would resume on Sept. 22 to allow commission lawyers time to review the email and conduct an investigation.
Art Vertlieb, the inquiry lawyer, said Roberts is only partly responsible for the embarrassment she suffered.
“The simple fact is the RCMP should have produced that document months and months before,” he said.
Although Roberts had spent more than a year on the inquiry, Vertlieb said her replacement should be able to catch up by the time the inquiry resumes.
A request to the Department of Justice for an interview with Roberts went unanswered. In a written statement the department said Roberts asked to withdraw from the inquiry. In a separate statement the RCMP said it had no role in her departure.
The fact that these eMails surfaced at all at this time tell me they were scared that the four officers would eventually be charged and not because they are transparent and honest.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
2 
0
It is probably that the inquiry itself has not completely examined every piece of paper, and with the raising of this email issue finds itself in a position of publication of those documents in its report, where some industrious reporter will find a nugget, that will show they overlooked something. I believe its called CYA.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
1 
1
Hastings, I am not going to address your ignorance, since you are clearly not willing to think straight and you are just anti-rcmp.
As for the rest of the communications. I can only say what I read in the news and say that it would have been better for the RCMP to bury this email not let it surface which they clearly didn’t. I wouldn’t put too much credibility into the email since how often does the president of a company know the exact going ons of everyone under them.
I suspect that Bent etc. didn’t actually know if they discussed the use of a cew before arriving or not. If they did discuss the fact that someone that is dangerous (he was throwing furniture and computers around) doesn’t comply to use an intermediate use of force option makes sense.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
1 
0
Jabberwocky
Actually, I was wondering about origins of the thousands of documents now considered by someone as possibly relevant.
Of course, it was rhetorical.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
1 
0
NRF: If you’re wondering where the additional staff is coming from, I can say with certainty that the Commission has been trying to recruit law students for these temporary positions.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
1 
0
Just one more issue facing our present, below average, spoiled police force who has been protected and favored way to long in their falures.
It’s time we looked closer to how they have been operating in this country before it cost us much.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
2 
0
It is interesting to note that the Braidwood Inquiry has advertised for additional staff to address “to address an expected large disclosure of documents (potentially thousands) that will require detailed analysis and organization.”
Wonder where those are coming from.
http://northerninsights.blogspot.com/2009/07/disclosure-of-documents-potentially.html
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
1 
0
Somebody of intelligence would not be conducting the business at hand with respect to a highly charged and politically sensitive issue over email. Formalized reporting would be expected.
The noted individuals being fairly high on the food chain should have conducted their business in recorded meetings with transcripts. It would not surprise me that they would not be privy to the minutiae of the investigation as was outlined by Rideout in his testimony which appeared to be forthright and honest. It therefore should preclude them from making and writing any assumptions they may have had, knowing that their communications would be subject of disclosure.
In other words what they thought or assumed at the time may or may not have been accurate, and as a result could contrast actual statements or facts.
Taken in that light the referenced emails hardly hold significant impact on the inquiry unless there are undeniable facts to the contrary. However, to ascertain what was conjecture and what was opinion or fact, the issue needs to be aired under oath in front of the inquiry.
Without knowing who in fact brought the emails to light the second time, first in disclosure by the RCMP, (obviously missed by the DOJ) and second before the conclusion of the inquiry, it is unfair to assume a negative.
Suffice to say that obligations were met by the RCMP in disclosure the first time and obligations by the DOJ were not.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
1
Not necessarily true diver. It depends on a number of things: when the RCMP disclosure to the DOJ lawyers took place; which DOJ lawyer was responsible for reviewing the documents; whether or not existence of the document was known to outside parties; the probability of any such outside parties bringing to light the existence of the e-mails.
In the same vein, while the RCMP claim to have disclosed everything to the DOJ lawyers, don’t you think that any higher-ups (e.g. Bent/McIntyre) might have been painfully aware of the fact that the particular e-mail had not been introduced as evidence? Especially when parties to the hearing have been making claims that parallel what was asserted in the e-mail?
Disclosure obligations on the part of the DOJ aside, the honour of the Crown is at stake here and the people who were privy to that particular e-mail, being experienced and (I would hope) intelligent, ought to have been aware of what proof wasn’t in the pudding, so to speak.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
1 
0
if they were wanting to be nefarious they wouldn’t have brought it forward and just forgotten that it existed. Keep in mind that the RCMP did what they had to and send all the information to the lawyers.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
1 
0
Ms. Roberts appears to have done the honourable thing and fallen on her own sword here. We’ll probably never know whether or not this was a simple oversight on her part, or something more nefarious. Mind you, the LSBC might yet investigate this and bring some light to the situation.
An equally interesting conundrum that this creates is whether or not McIntyre or Bent remembered this e-mail and what lead Bent to draw the conclusions that he did in the e-mail.
Perhaps a worthwhile bit of reading can be found here: http://www.braidwoodinquiry.ca/hearings_transcripts/BraidwoodHearingsMay06-09.pdf
This is a transcript of Rideout’s testimony at the inquiry. Sadly, I don’t have time to pour over it right now… maybe in a few days.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
1 
0