What does it take to convict a cop? asks DiManno
A judge wouldn't convict Const. Glenn Weddell of a G20 assault, but police took no chances with a civil settlement.
The evidence against Const. Glenn Weddell wasn’t good enough for an Ontario Superior Court judge.
That exact same evidence won Dorian Barton a civil suit settlement from the Toronto Police department which employs Weddell.
The dollar figure can’t be disclosed because of confidentiality agreements. Let us just say it was substantial, though not rising to the $250,000 which had been sought.
Of course, the standard of proof is not as high in a civil proceeding. But this suit never went to court. Presumably, police lawyers looked at what was before them — photographic evidence from an incident during the G20 protests at Queen’s Park — and made a calculated decision to fold and pay up.
One is left wondering: What does it take to criminally convict a Toronto cop on assault charges?
That’s actually a rhetorical question. I’ve covered enough cases to know how high the standard of proof must be, which is way beyond the threshold applied against civilians. Doesn’t matter if it’s a jury or judge alone trial — the odds are stacked because the system is stacked.
On one side are all the good folks who represent law and order, a constituency that, by definition, includes the judge and the Crown — the latter appointed by a Crown Office that works closely with police officers in the prosecution of countless cases. On the other side is the complainant, held to disproportionate standards of credibility.
Thus we are to believe — as Justice M. Gregory Ellies concluded — that Weddell did not strike Barton with his shield or his baton during the chaotic demonstration on June 26, 2010, wherein Barton’s shoulder was broken. Indeed, Weddell testified last week that he was merely helping Barton get up from the pavement. “I’m picking him up by his shirt and getting him out of the area,’’ the 49-year-old officer told his lawyer under direct examination. “I’m asking him to leave or he’ll be arrested.’’
He denied hitting Barton with a riot shield or baton, as had been alleged.
So maybe Weddell should never have been charged — which occurred only after the Special Investigations Unit receiving supporting evidence from the public. Indeed, maybe Weddell deserves a commendation for his thoughtfulness. You think?
Weddell said he approached Barton with shield raised to protect himself, in case the civilian became violent. Barton had not been doing anything remotely threatening; he was taking pictures of mounted officers at the protest, which quickly disintegrated into a shocking show of force by law enforcement against peaceful demonstrators — at a location where they had expressly been told to move their civil protest.
Barton testified he was struck at least five times, suffering a broken shoulder, a black eye, bruises, sprains, cuts and scratches. There are photographs that document those injuries. Yet it was Barton who was originally charged with obstructing police and taking part in an unlawful demonstration — charges that were dropped two months later.
There were no photos that explicitly show Wendell or any other officer hitting Barton. And Barton could not identify the cop (or cops) who struck him.
But there were photos, there was video, of the moments surrounding that alleged incident. A bystander recorded the event and latter submitted his evidence to the SIU. That was Andrew Wallace, a hospital worker and amateur photograph who’d never met Barton before. Apart from Barton, Wallace was the only witness called by the prosecution — despite the fact Weddell had emerged from a line of officers moving toward the demonstrators. Those other cops might have seen exactly what happened but not one of them came forward and not one of them was subpoenaed to testify against a colleague. Nor did the Crown call upon an expert witness to establish the fact of Barton’s injuries.
Barton could not identify the officer who struck him. Wallace did — and was called a liar by the defence.
The defence lawyer, Peter Brauti, further painted Wallace as an individual with an axe to grind against all cops, animosity arising from a wrongful accusation of sexual assault more than 15 years ago. If I were wrongly accused of sexual assault — or any assault — I’d have some animosity too. What this has to do with an incident all these years later is mystifying, except that cop lawyers will plumb any depth to absolve their clients — because it works.
Wallace testified he saw the whole thing. He took photos, including a couple in which Waddell is identifiable. In his judgment, Ellies wrote: “There is no video or photographic evidence which depicts the moment that Mr. Barton was knocked to the ground. All of that real evidence begins with him already being there.”
Ellies emphasized discrepancies in Wallace’s testimony. But most problematic, apparently, was that one image was missing in the sequential numbers on the digital version of photographs taken. Wallace said he didn’t remember deleting any photos, with Brauti asserting that, huh, it must have been exculpatory then.
Yet Weddell told court he remembered virtually nothing of his interactions with Barton that day — oh, except, I guess, kindly helping him up. And his peculiar memory lapse is accepted as credibility-boosting.
“(W)ith respect to this part of the events of June 26, I accept his evidence and reject that of Mr. Wallace,” Ellies writes. “I believe him when he says he did not strike Mr. Barton with his shield and knock him to the ground. That is something that I think he would remember. I have no difficulty accepting that evidence over the evidence of Mr. Wallace.”
That’s really the crux of the thing and why Weddell was acquitted on charges of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon: The cop is believed; a civilian isn’t.
Wallace declined an interview request from the Star over the weekend. But, following Friday’s verdict, he sent an email to Barton’s father, assuring he had no regrets about testifying despite the attack on his character.
“It was the right thing to do. I just wish things had turned out better. I’m sorry Dorian, you and the rest of your family didn’t get justice.”
Nope, all Dorian Barton got was a heap of money.
Officer Weddell is not guilty, a judge decided. Toronto Police must have thought otherwise.
The next G20 trial of an officer begins today.
