Mike McIntyre, Winnipeg, MB (Winnipeg Free Press) – It should have been a slam-dunk — a speeding driver who kills a 12-year-old boy admits he’d been drinking, smells of booze, fails two roadside screening tests and then refuses a breathalyzer.
Yet by the time Pernell Guimond went to trial last year in Winnipeg, all alcohol-related charges had disappeared. Last week, Guimond dodged jail time after being found guilty of dangerous driving causing death.
Now a Winnipeg Free Press investigation has uncovered extensive details of what might have went wrong with the Guimond prosecution — and how a one-time romance gone bad between the lead Crown attorney and a senior RCMP officer is at the heart of reviews by both the Crown’s office and the RCMP into the conduct of the case.
Manitoba deputy attorney general Don Slough confirmed Friday that every facet of the case will be reviewed to see if there was any wrongdoing by his office. He said RCMP are launching a similar probe of their own conduct.
“We’re really interested in the issue of what evidence was called regarding alcohol,” said Slough.
The young victim, Brent Guimond (not related to Pernell), died in August 2006 after being hit by Pernell Guimond’s car on the side of a darkened highway at Sagkeeng First Nation, located about 145 kilometres northeast of Winnipeg.
Powerview RCMP Cpl. Jeff Moyes was the senior officer who signed off on criminal charges including impaired driving causing death and refusing a breathalyzer.
Moyes began dating Crown attorney Debbie Buors in April 2008 — several weeks before Guimond’s preliminary hearing began, the Free Press has learned. The pair met while Buors was handling the Powerview-area court circuit.
Moyes wasn’t at the scene of the crash but told the Free Press this week he had detailed notes about his dealings with Guimond back in the RCMP station and how the accused refused to submit to a breathalyzer. Yet Moyes says he was surprised when his girlfriend never called him to the witness stand, believing he had important evidence to offer.
“Why wasn’t I called to testify?” he said Friday.
The Crown’s case quickly fell apart when the officer who initially dealt with Guimond — Const. Tyler Ens — admitted he didn’t take any specific notes of a damning conversation he allegedly had with the accused. Ens told court he could smell alcohol on Guimond and recalls Guimond mentioning having “a couple” beers.
Ens said the admissions formed his basis for an Alcohol Screening Device test, which Guimond failed. A second test, five minutes later, produced the same result.
Under cross-examination, Ens admitted his wording may be off and he didn’t know when the ASD had last been checked or calibrated because he wasn’t a qualified technician. Provincial Court Judge Mary Curtis then refused to allow his evidence to stand, saying there were too many questions to conclude it was properly obtained by police.
Buors didn’t call any further evidence about impairment and only sought a committal on charges of dangerous driving and criminal negligence causing death, which she received. Buors didn’t believe the refuse breathalyzer charge would stick, considering it was based on two failed ASD tests the judge had ruled were inadmissible.
Guimond was later convicted at trial of dangerous driving and received a two-year conditional sentence which allows him to remain free in the community.
Buors expressed shock Friday at Moyes’s claim he had potentially important evidence to give. She is now questioning Moyes’s motives for speaking out based on the ugly way their romance ended in January last year. Moyse was charged in April 2009 with two counts of criminal harassment against Buors. He denies the allegations and the matter is set for trial later this year.
Yes, Buors should have recused herself from this case. Unfortunately she had already breached office policy by failing to disclose to her supervisor her relationship with Cpl. Moyse in the first place. Had she recused herself, and explained why, this omission would have come to light.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
3 
0
Seems to me that Cst. Ens didn’t do his job by not taking the appropriate and necessary notes.
But it also seems to me the Crown attorney Debbie Buors didn’t have a firm grasp on this case. I don’t see how her personal relationship with Cpl. Moyers shouldn’t be a factor in this. If she didn’t feel comfortable working on the same case, she should have recused herself.