“Someone must have been telling lies about Joseph K., for without having done anything wrong he was arrested one fine morning.”
― The Trial
One of the most intriguing books I have ever read in my long reading life is The Trial. The above quotation represents the heart of the novel, about a man who endures the torturous and protracted processes of an arcane justice system. I found myself thinking about the book during the trial of Ulmar Zammer, whose hellish descent into the justice system is one almost too awful to contemplate.
The novel's resonance in the case emerges when considering the False Testimony three officers gave about the circumstances of the 'crime.' They all averred that Zameer had struck head-on Officer Northrup, testimony that was clearly belied both by accident reconstruction experts and video of what took place in the underground garage where Northrup met his fate.
One of the most troubling aspects of the trial is that it largely seemed to go forward on the basis of that false testimony. And despite the observation of the presiding judge that the case for murder was extremely weak, the Crown pressed on. There was nary a word about not having a reasonable prospect of conviction, perhaps because the case involved a Police death, and Crown attorneys do value good relationships with the authorities.
So is there justice to be found in all of this? I have my doubts, since the closest anyone has come in describing the false testimony of the police witnesses is collusion, a process the Crown stoutly denied, since the officers "would have had no reason to collude." What seems notably absent in the official discussions of the police misbehaviour is the P word- perjury. The best Toronto police chief Myron Demkiw can do, in an act that smacks more of political theatre than an earnest pursuit of justice, is to have the OPP investigate his officers' behaviour.
In a statement late Monday afternoon, Denkiw referred to “adverse comments” made by [Justice] Molloy in explaining his reason for asking for the review. He did not detail those comments any further.
“Whenever the Toronto Police Service becomes aware of concerns raised by the judiciary, its governance requires that a review be conducted with respect to officer testimony, conduct, procedures, practices, and training,” the statement notes.
An Internet search suggests that charging police with perjury is fairly rare, though I note a Toronto officer was charged yesterday. The language is interesting:
The force says that in June last year, the officer gave investigators false, misleading or inaccurate information regarding a criminal investigation involving that person.
Police say the 39-year-old constable was charged this week with two counts of attempting to obstruct justice and one count of perjury.
Why is there apparently not a similar appetite to charge the offending officers in the Zameeer case? Could it have anything to do with the fact that they lost "one of their own" in the tragic accident that took officer Northrup's life?
Of course, my lifelong cynicism suggests no charges will ultimately be filed. I stand, however, ready to be happily corrected.
