 |
| John Hill |
The not-guilty verdict delivered on Sun., April 21, 2024, would seemingly show that all is right with the justice system. An innocent man was not convicted of first-degree murder or even lesser and included charges.
Ontario Superior Court Justice Anne Molloy offered “deepest apologies for what you’ve been through.” It was reminiscent of the apologies provided to Walter Gillespie and Robert Mailman by a New Brunswick court after they were exonerated and served prison sentences for the 1983 murder of George Leeman.
The justice system worked for Umar Zameer — or did it? Zameer’s defence team of Nader Hasan and Alexandra Heine conducted the trial superbly, ensuring all relevant facts were established. Hasan gave an impressive interview on CBC’s Metro Morning radio show on April 22, underscoring his client’s innocence. Yet there should have been no need to provide such reassurance that justice had been done.
People observing our criminal justice system still feel things could be better. Much of the blame for the tragedy that Zameer and his family went through (and probably will continue to go through) must be placed at the feet of our elected leaders, police and justice administration.
The politicians became involved immediately after Justice Jill Copeland released Zameer on bail. Our leaders (not unlike a publicity-seeking politician in the United States) went online to express their outrage at Canada’s “catch and release” bail system. Premier Doug Ford, Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown and former Toronto mayor John Tory fuelled public outrage even without knowing Justice Copeland’s reasons or the facts surrounding the case.
When politicians speak out on cases before the court, it is a disservice to our judicial institutions. It could foster illegal acts such as those riled by intemperate remarks by Donald Trump in the United States. Defence lawyer Hasan told the Toronto Star that public reaction following Zameer’s bail release was rife with racist vitriol. Strangers would approach Hasan and say things like, “I hope your kids get hit by a car.” Stirring public outrage by our elected leaders ought not be allowed. Not only does it prompt violent actions and comments towards accused people and their representatives, but it also uproots our trust in public institutions. It turns the quest for justice into vigilantism.
It has been widely accepted that Crown attorneys play a pivotal role in ensuring that only the most serious charges are presented for prosecution. We now learn that Justice Copeland, in her bail decision, questioned why Zameer would want to kill a policeman “or anyone else for that matter.” Justice Molloy was also dubious about the lack of a motive, calling it “the elephant in the room.” Indeed, when such competent and experienced jurists question the nature of the prosecution, the Crown attorney’s office should pay special attention to ensure that they are heading up a trial for justice and not to appease the sentiments of their political bosses.
The police are most likely at the heart of what could have resulted in a gross miscarriage of justice. Following the verdict, Toronto’s police chief expressed his disappointment with the outcome of the trial. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate for him to announce that an internal investigation would be started into suspicions of police collusion and possibly perjury in evidence presented at the Zameer trial.
Most Canadians have the utmost respect for the fine work most police officers perform. It is of no credit to police when “the thin blue line” becomes the standard for upholding police misconduct or ignoring innocent mistakes that become a blemish on a force’s reputation.
The death of Constable Northrup was tragic. But it was not a criminal act; it was a confluence of errors by the police and a driver. It did not deserve a criminal penalty.
A legal defence fund has been set up to help the Zameer family overcome what will likely be a crushing financial blow. Both the Northrup family and the Zameer family have been through hell these past three years, and the trauma will likely remain. Canadians can take pride in the fact that our judicial institutions are working correctly — despite the interventions and non-interventions of people who should know better.
John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a J.D. from Queen’s and an LL.M. in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. He is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books). Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.