0.000000
0.000000
A Case of Role Reversal
Author Archives: Menno Zacharias
No Charges in Bousquet Case
After more than two years of investigation the RCMP announced today that their review of the Cody Bousquet case is complete and that no charges are warranted.
RCMP Tight Lipped About Bousquet Investigation
In December of 2009 the media was in an uproar over the alleged use of excessive force by Winnipeg police when they arrested Cody Bousquet.
Allegations of police misconduct filled the air.
In January of 2010 the Winnipeg Police Service decided to call in the RCMP to conduct a review of the incident. The intent of the review was to determine if members of the Winnipeg Police Service used excessive force in arresting Bousquet. One of the reasons the RCMP was asked to do the review was that one of the officers involved was the current Chief’s nephew.
As the investigation has now been ongoing for close to 2 years I decided to follow-up to determine if any progress has been made.
I first contacted the Winnipeg Police Service to inquire as to the status of the investigation and received the following reply:
This investigation is being handled by the RCMP and therefore all questions pertaining to the investigation should be directed to them.
I then contacted the RCMP and asked them the same question. The RCMP replied with this statement:
The RCMP is not in a position to comment on this specific matter at this time.
Generally, only in the event that an investigation results in the laying of criminal charges, would the RCMP confirm its investigation, the nature of any charges laid and the identity of the individual (s) involved.
Despite the fact that the RCMP would seem to have a policy on not confirming they are conducting an investigation until such time as charges are laid, I found an interesting quote in an article by Chris Ketching where the RCMP did in fact comment on and confirm that they were investigating the Bousquet matter.
The RCMP has been made aware of this apparent contradiction. No response at the time of this writing.
March 2012 Crime Data
A Cautionary Tale: March 2012 Crime Statistics for Winnipeg (for crimes tracked by Crimestat)
| Crime Type | Year-to-Date Comparison | Selected Filter Comparison | ||||
| Jan 1, 2012 To Mar 31, 2012 |
Jan 1, 2011 To Mar 31, 2011 |
% Change | Mar 1, 2012 To Mar 31, 2012 |
Mar 1, 2011 To Mar 31, 2011 |
% Change | |
 Break & Enters – Commercial |
200 | 151 | 32% | 48 | 49 | -2% |
 Break & Enters – Other |
200 | 191 | 5% | 69 | 85 | -19% |
 Break & Enters – Residential |
480 | 514 | -7% | 151 | 169 | -11% |
 Homicide |
7 | 9 | -22% | 2 | 2 | 0% |
 Robbery – Commercial/Financial |
109 | 83 | 31% | 47 | 33 | 42% |
 Robbery – Non-Commercial/Financial |
371 | 266 | 39% | 141 | 85 | 66% |
 Sexual Assault |
30 | 45 | -33% | 7 | 18 | -61% |
 Shooting |
18 | 5 | 260% | 6 | 2 | 200% |
 Theft Motor Vehicle – Actual |
294 | 346 | -15% | 115 | 92 | 25% |
 Theft Motor Vehicle – Attempt Only |
186 | 289 | -36% | 62 | 91 | -32% |
| Total | 1,895 | 1,899 | 0% | 648 | 626 | 4% |
Source: Winnipeg Police Crimestat website
Highlights
1. The city-wide crime rate (for crimes tracked by Crimestat) for the first 3 months of this year (January – March) is unchanged compared to the same period in 2011.
2. The overall crime rate in March of 2012 is 4% higher than in March of 2011.
3. Commercial robberies are up 42% for March (31% year to date).
4. Muggings are up 66% for March (39% year to date).
5. Shootings, (although the numbers are still small 18 total so far in 2012) are increasing at an alarming rate compared to 2011 (260%).
Increase in auto theft rate:
In the February report I drew attention to the 3% rise in auto theft rate. In March the auto theft rate increased by 25% compared to March of 2011. This has all the appearances of an upward trend that requires immediate attention. If the Winnipeg Police Service allows this trend to continue unchecked it has the potential to negatively affect Winnipeg’s overall auto theft rate and undoing all of the awarding winning results achieved by the auto theft suppression strategy.
Graham James Gets Two Years, Could Walk by September
Societies are not judged by how they treat the powerful but rather how they treat the most vulnerable, and the manner in which those who abuse and victimize the most vulnerable are dealt with when they are charged and convicted.
Graham James is the poster boy for what is wrong with our criminal justice system.
James was sentenced to two years in custody for repeated sexual assaults committed against Theo Fleury and Todd Holt. The sentences are concurrent, not consecutive.
What does that mean in terms of when James is eligible to apply for parole and be back out on the street again?
James can apply for day parole in 6 months. If granted he could hit the streets in September of 2012.
He is eligible for full parole after serving one-third of his sentence – if granted that would be in November 2012.
If James is denied parole he will be eligible for statutory release after having served two-thirds of his sentence – July of 2013.
So that is how we treat those who abuse the vulnerable.
“That’ll teach ’em”. Or not. Perhaps more victims will come forward and we can make this an annual event.
On a last note, before the politicians start wringing their hands and bemoaning what happened here they should have a look in the mirror. They are the only ones with the power to make change. If they are not prepared to do so, they should step aside and make room for someone who can, and will, do the right thing.
UPDATE February 15 2013
The Manitoba Court of Appeal increased James’ sentence from 2 years to 5 years.
Poll Results
It seems the readers of this blog who responded to the recent poll on traffic tickets are out of step with the thinking of the Winnipeg Police Service. Unlike the Police Service most of you think it’s about the money. Imagine that!
Is the current Winnipeg Police initiative to increase the number of tags being issued by police officers about:
| Answer | Votes | Percent | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Generating revenue | 63 | 88% | |
| Road safety | 5 | 7% | |
| Ensuring police officers are doing their job | 4 | 6% |
Provincial Fines and How Fine Revenue is Distributed
Have you ever wondered what the fine amounts are for breaches of Provincial Statutes and how the fines are set?
They are set by the province and published in the form of regulations.
The Regulations create ‘fine categories’ and each category has a money amount attached to it. This simplifies things for Judges when they assess fines. For example: there are offences under different Provincial Statutes such as the Highway Traffic Act and the Liquor Control Act that fall under the same category for fine purposes. Generally speaking Categories A to F deal with offences committed by individuals while Categories G to J deal with offences committed by business owners or corporations.
Examples of offences in each category
Category A – fail to produce a driver’s licence
Category B – Drive left of dividing line
Category C – Fail to yield right of way
Category D – Disobey a traffic control device
Category E – Have or keep liquor in a vehicle other than authorized
Category F Drive an unregistered vehicle
Category G – Sell liquor other than authorized (boot legging)
Category H – Transport hazardous waste without a licence
Category I – Fail to report an environmental accident
Category J – Sell, buy, trade or barter the meat of a wild animal
The Province of Manitoba recently published the amended Summary Conviction Act Regulation that lays out fines for offences against Provincial Statutes. Table 1 (below) shows the 10 offence categories with category A offences being the least serious and Category J offences being the most serious.
The table shows that the actual base fines range between $37.00 for Category A offences all the way up to $1467.00 for Category J offences. That is just the basic fine though. To that you must add the various surcharges like court costs (45% of the base fine), the Victim Service Surcharge (20% of the base fine), and the Justice Services Surcharge (a flat rate of $50.00 per offence). Once all the surcharges are added the fines persons convicted must pay are $110.00 for Category A offences and $2470.00 for Category J offences. The table also shows how the fine revenue is broken down between the Province and the City. As indicated for the offences with lower fines, the Province takes a bigger cut and as the fines increase the City’s cut increases.
Table 1 Offence Category Table
| Offence Category | Base Fine | Court Costs | Victim Services Surcharge | Justice Services Surcharge | Total | City Portion % | Provincial Portion % |
| A | 37.00 | 16.00 | 8.00 | 50.00 | 111.00 | 35 | 65 |
| B | 55.00 | 25.00 | 11.00 | 50.00 | 141.00 | 41 | 59 |
| C | 73.00 | 33.00 | 15.00 | 50.00 | 171.00 | 45 | 55 |
| D | 90.00 | 41.00 | 19.00 | 50.00 | 200.00 | 48 | 52 |
| E | 110.00 | 50.00 | 22.00 | 50.00 | 221.00 | 50 | 50 |
| F | 147.00 | 66.00 | 30.00 | 50.00 | 293.00 | 53 | 47 |
| G | 257.00 | 115.00 | 52.00 | 50.00 | 474.00 | 57 | 43 |
| H | 367.00 | 165.00 | 74.00 | 50.00 | 656.00 | 59 | 41 |
| I | 733.00 | 330 | 147.00 | 50.00 | 1260.00 | 62 | 38 |
| J | 1467.00 | 660.00 | 294.00 | 50.00 | 2470.00 |
Source: Table 1 was constructed with information obtained from the Province of Manitoba, and the Winnipeg Police Service.
For clarity and ease of reference the fine amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar and the split between the Province and the City to the nearest %.
Speeding Offences
Unlike other offences the fines for speeding offences are dynamic, i.e. they increase as the speed goes up. The basic fine for speeding is $7.70 per kilometre over the posted speed limit. Tickets are not normally issued until the threshold of 10 KPH over the speed limit is reached. Speeding offences that are committed in construction zones (when workers are present) are subject to a further $5.00 per kilometre surcharge for a total of $12.70 for each kilometre per hour over the posted speed limit. Table 2 shows the fine breakdown based on 5 specific speeds.
Table 2 Speeding Offences Table
| KPH over limit | Base Fine | Court Costs | Victim Services Surcharge | Justice Services Surcharge | Total | City Portion | Provincial Portion % |
| 10 | 77.00 | 35.00 | 16.00 | 50.00 | 178.00 | 43 | 57 |
| 20 | 154.00 | 69.00 | 31.00 | 50.00 | 304.00 | 51 | 49 |
| 40 | 308.00 | 139.00 | 62.00 | 50.00 | 559.00 | 55 | 45 |
| 80 | 616.00 | 277.00 | 124.00 | 50.00 | 1067.00 | 58 | 42 |
| 99 | 762.00 | 343.00 | 153.00 | 50.00 | 1308.00 | 58 | 42 |
Source: information compiled based on information contained in the Manitoba Summary Convictions Act (Regulations)
Note: All numbers rounded up to nearest dollar/per centage.
Now you know.
Building Relationships One Ticket At A Time
Winnipeg Police Response to the Laszlo Piszker Case
Winnipeg Police recently issued a News Release after they got some push back from Laszlo Piszker. Piszker was issued with a traffic offence notice alleging distracted driving (talking on a cell phone while operating a motor vehicle).
In this particular case the issue made its way into the media and quickly became not only a local but also a national story.
This is the News Release issued by Winnipeg Police:
|
Tuesday, March 6th, 2012 In response to media inquiries regarding a distracted driving provincial offence notice that was recently issued, the Winnipeg Police Service has the following response:
Distracted driving is a serious safety issue similar to impaired driving or speeding and numerous studies have concluded that it increases the likelihood of collisions.
The Winnipeg Police Service has conducted a review of this incident and has information that is contradictory to the information that has been depicted in the local media.
It is alleged that on March 2nd, 2012 officers were in a police cruiser car that was travelling on Portage Avenue when they observed a male driver of a vehicle with a cell phone held to his ear. Officers were 7 to 8 feet away from the driver when this was observed. Emergency lighting equipment was activated and it took several blocks before the vehicle pulled over. A provincial offence notice was issued to the male driver of the vehicle.
The Winnipeg Police Service will not be discussing this specific incident any further as the proper forum to contest an offence notice is in a Provincial Court. A Judge or Judicial Justice of the Peace will hear the evidence and render a decision.
Winnipeg Police Service will continue to enforce the sections in the Highway Traffic Act related to Distracted Driving to ensure our roadways are safe.
For further information contact either: Office: (204)986-3061 |
The purpose of this post is not to discuss the merits of the case against Mr. Piszker. That case is before the courts and will and should be decided in the courts, not in the media, and not in the court of public opinion. The purpose is rather to respond to how the police service has reacted to the media.
Police departments are well aware that comments to the media about pending court cases, especially the discussion of the evidence in a particular case, can prejudice the case and the ability of the accused to get a fair trial.
That is why most police departments including the Winnipeg Police Service have policies that restrict and, in many cases prohibit, police from commenting on cases before the courts. The Winnipeg Police Service Media Policy and the media policies of most police departments have a line that says: “Do not prejudice trials” and the first point listed usually references”discussing evidence”. That is why so often you will hear police respond with “we cannot comment further as the matter is before the courts”. That is a reasoned and appropriate response.
So what was it that prompted Winnipeg Police to violate that policy and issue this press release which discusses the evidence?
Several things come into play: police officers and police unions put significant pressure on police executives to respond to the media in situations such as this to defend the actions of the officers involved. Secondly, as a police executive, it is only natural to want to defend the organization when its actions or the actions of its members come under attack. Some police executives wisely take the heat in the short-term and do the right thing which is to advise the media that the matter is before the courts, the evidence will be revealed at trial and the decision will be made by the courts and decline further comment. Not so the Winnipeg Police Service.
The Actions of the Winnipeg Police
Let’s start by examining the content of the News Release. It starts by comparing distracted driving with impaired driving and speeding. The purpose here would be to villianize the accused in this case (who has dared to speak publicly about this issue) and place him in the same category of offender as impaired drivers, a category of offenders who have little public sympathy. Are impaired driving and speeding actually similar to using a cell phone while driving? I think that an argument can be made that distracted driving, although a serious offence in its own right, is still just a violation of the Highway traffic Act, A Provincial Statute, and subject to a fine. That’s a poor comparison to impaired driving which is a criminal offence which can result in license suspension and in extreme cases, jail time. In terms of speeding, drivers exceeding the limit by say 10 or 15 KPH are much less likely to cause or become involved in an accident than a distracted driver. Neither offence is a good comparator.
The News Release then goes on to discuss the evidence in terms of what the issuing officer(s) saw. This is out of line. Evidence should be presented to the court not the media.
The case reminds me of the reaction of Winnipeg Police in the Evan Maud case, a case that involved an allegation that members of the Winnipeg Police Service had taken a young male on a “Starlight Tour”. The case eventually resulted in a charge of public mischief being laid against Maud but again the police released a lot of the evidence in the case to the media in an attempt to sway public opinion in favour of the Police Service.
It is not appropriate for police to pick and choose when they will comply with their policy to not discuss cases and release evidence relating to matters before the courts..
Expedience should not replace adherence to basic policies, values and principles in police decision making in matters such as these.
A Man’s Home is His Castle
(This article first appear in the March issue of Lifestyles 55)
The concept that a person’s home is inviolate originates in British common law. In its original form the common law was intended to protect citizens not only from each other but perhaps more importantly from unlawful incursions by the King.
One of the first references in the common law in terms of the right to defend one’s home was in the Samynes case (1604) where it was stated: “That the house of everyone is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defense against injury and violence as for his repose…”.
In 1628 Sir Edward Coke wrote Institutes of the Laws of England. Coke coined the phrase “For a man’s house is his castle”.
Banned from entry
A man’s house is his castle and woe betide all who would enter without permission
In 1763 the term “castle” was defined by British Prime Minister William Pitt, the first Earl of Chatham, also known as Pitt the Elder, who stated: “The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the crown. It may be frail – its roof may shake – the wind may blow through it – the storm may enter – the rain may enter – but the King of England cannot enter.”
The evolution of the British common law in North America has resulted in the codification of many common law principles.
In Canada, for example, Section 40 of the Criminal Code outlines the rights of persons who occupy a dwelling house to defend their “castle”. Section 40 states:
40. Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using as much force as is necessary to prevent any person from forcibly breaking into or forcibly entering the dwelling-house without lawful authority.
Police announce themselves
In Canada the authority of occupants of a dwelling house is not absolute. Firstly, if the person attempting entry has the lawful authority to do so, the occupant is not justified in using force to prevent the entry. An example would be a police officer with a search warrant. That is why when police execute a search warrant they loudly announce their presence and make it clearly known to the occupants that they are the police. Such an announcement makes any violence directed at police unlawful. Failure to do so could give rise to a defence by the occupant that he was under the impression that a home invasion was in progress. Secondly, the authorization to use force is not carte blanch. The wording “as much force as is necessary” expresses the clear intent of the legislation that the amount of force used should be proportionate to the threat.
Many American states have taken a different approach. Thirty-one states have passed laws based on the “Castle Defence Doctrine”. Castle defence laws allow a person whose home is under attack to use force up to and including deadly force against the attacker.
The laws vary from state to state with states having either strong or weak castle laws. States with weak castle laws require that the homeowner retreat as opposed to using force, if retreat is feasible. Other states do not require retreat but allow homeowners to “stand their ground” against unlawful attack.
In all cases, the occupant must legally be in the residence, and the intruder must be there illegally. Additionally, castle laws may extend these rights to a workplace, a vehicle or other residences, as long as the occupant is legally there. Some states offer immunity not only from criminal prosecution but also civil liability in situations where the occupant used force to repel an attack.
Few criminal charges
Castle laws in many American states are relatively new, having been passed in the last 10 years. In states with castle laws there have been very few cases where homeowners have been charged criminally in situations where they used force to defend their homes.
Canada has not yet enacted American style castle laws. In Canada the presumption is that if you can safely retreat from the situation without using force you should do so.
Perhaps the law needs to change. In cities like Winnipeg, which chronically suffer from high rates of violent crime and an increase in the number of home invasions, perhaps it is time for the law to be clarified and even expanded in terms of the rights of individuals to defend their “castle”.
Crime Breakdown by Police District and Electoral Ward
The following 2 tables provide a breakdown of crime (tracked by Crimestat) for the first two months of 2012. The first table shows the breakdown by police district, the second by electoral ward. The tables are followed by Crimestat tables for the two electoral wards that showed the biggest increase in Crime.
Break down by police district
| Police District | February | Year to date |
| 1 | +20 | +15 |
| 2 | -33 | -25 |
| 3 | +21 | -1 |
| East | -7 | -16 |
| 6 | -6 | +5 |
| City Wide | +4 | -3 |
Breakdown by electoral ward
| Electoral Ward | February | Year to date |
| Charleswood – Tuxedo | +33 | +30 |
| Daniel McIntyre | +34 | +13 |
| Elmwood – East Kildonan | -22 | -35 |
| Fort Rouge – East Fort Garry | -13 | -7 |
| Mynarski | +4 | -8 |
| North Kildonan | -56 | -21 |
| Old Kildonan | +173 | +110 |
| Point Douglas | +5 | -7 |
| River Heights – Fort Garry | -15 | -3 |
| St. Boniface | +22 | +11 |
| St. Charles | -56 | -33 |
| St. James-Brooklands | -35 | -15 |
| St. Norbert | +156 | +84 |
| St. Vital | +4 | -14 |
| Transcona | 0 | -8 |
Old Kildonan Electoral Ward (table)
| Crime Type | Year-to-Date Comparison | Selected Filter Comparison | ||||
| Jan 1, 2012 To Feb 29, 2012 |
Jan 1, 2011 To Feb 28, 2011 |
% Change | Feb 1, 2012 To Feb 29, 2012 |
Feb 1, 2011 To Feb 28, 2011 |
% Change | |
|
Break & Enters – Commercial |
4 | 5 | -20% | 2 | 1 | 100% |
|
Break & Enters – Other |
10 | 0 | (NC) | 8 | 0 | (NC) |
|
Break & Enters – Residential |
17 | 9 | 89% | 7 | 5 | 40% |
|
Homicide |
0 | 0 | (NC) | 0 | 0 | (NC) |
|
Robbery – Commercial/Financial |
3 | 1 | 200% | 3 | 1 | 200% |
|
Robbery – Non-Commercial/Financial |
5 | 0 | (NC) | 4 | 0 | (NC) |
|
Sexual Assault |
0 | 2 | -100% | 0 | 0 | (NC) |
|
Shooting |
0 | 1 | -100% | 0 | 0 | (NC) |
|
Theft Motor Vehicle – Actual |
16 | 7 | 129% | 13 | 5 | 160% |
|
Theft Motor Vehicle – Attempt Only |
8 | 5 | 60% | 4 | 3 | 33% |
| Total | 63 | 30 | 110% | 41 | 15 | 173% |
Source: Winnipeg Police Crimestat website
* it appears there is an issue with the Break& Enter-Other and Robbery Non-Commercial categories. Although the numbers vary between 2011 and 2012 the difference is shown as (N/C) indicating no change
St. Norbert Electoral Ward (table)
| Crime Type | Year-to-Date Comparison | Selected Filter Comparison | ||||
| Jan 1, 2012 To Feb 29, 2012 |
Jan 1, 2011 To Feb 28, 2011 |
% Change | Feb 1, 2012 To Feb 29, 2012 |
Feb 1, 2011 To Feb 28, 2011 |
% Change | |
|
Break & Enters – Commercial |
6 | 0 | (NC) | 2 | 0 | (NC) |
|
Break & Enters – Other |
0 | 1 | -100% | 0 | 0 | (NC) |
|
Break & Enters – Residential |
16 | 7 | 129% | 7 | 6 | 17% |
|
Homicide |
0 | 1 | -100% | 0 | 0 | (NC) |
|
Robbery – Commercial/Financial |
3 | 0 | (NC) | 3 | 0 | (NC) |
|
Robbery – Non-Commercial/Financial |
10 | 2 | 400% | 4 | 1 | 300% |
|
Sexual Assault |
0 | 0 | (NC) | 0 | 0 | (NC) |
|
Shooting |
0 | 0 | (NC) | 0 | 0 | (NC) |
|
Theft Motor Vehicle – Actual |
10 | 12 | -17% | 6 | 2 | 200% |
|
Theft Motor Vehicle – Attempt Only |
1 | 2 | -50% | 1 | 0 | (NC) |
| Total | 46 | 25 | 84% | 23 | 9 | 156% |
Source: Winnipeg Police Crimestat website
* same issue as with the previous table in this instance in the Break&Enter Commercial and Robbery-Commercial and Theft Motor Vehicle – Attempt categories.
Comments:
1. Although the per cent-age increased in Old Kildonan and St. Norbert are extremely high, the actual numbers when compared to other electoral wards are still very low by comparison.
2. In Old Kildonan the increase was driven by residential break-ins and actual and attempted auto theft.
3. In St. Norbert it was residential break-ins and muggings.
Policing, Politics and Public Policy 