| The OPP report on the officers’ conduct in the Umar Zameer trial was a repackaging of the evidence already heard by an impartial jury that unanimously rejected the officers’ accounts and acquitted Mr. Zameer. At the conclusion of the trial, the Toronto Police Chief declared that: “we were hoping for a different outcome”. To achieve that result, the police investigators appointed themselves judge and jury and retried the case by accepting novel theories never tested at trial. The police intentionally chose this flawed and biased process instead of engaging in a public, independent, and adversarial review of Justice Molloy’s findings. In the wake of the release of the OPP report, the President of the Toronto Police Association and the Premier have called on the trial judge to apologize to the officers involved in the case. These statements are unprecedented and an inappropriate attack on judicial independence. These comments are an attempt to subvert the justice system. Judicial independence is a cornerstone of our constitutional democracy. Judges must be impartial arbiters to protect the integrity and legitimacy of the courts. Judges are given a wide latitude when deciding issues of credibility because alongside juries, they are in the best position to determine whether or not to believe a witness. Trial judges’ decisions are available to the public and can be appealed by the parties. The public can debate and comment on the outcome. Judges cannot and should not change or apologize for their decisions based on requests from other branches of government or from witnesses in a case. Adam Weisberg, President, on behalf of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association For all media inquiries, please email media@criminallawyers.ca |
