Ruling has officers prepare own notes

The Supreme Court has ruled that police officers under investigation are not able to have lawyers vet or help with their notes before they’re submitted to the Special Investigation Unit. Two Hamilton families who’s loved ones were shot and killed by police say this is a small victory.

Norm Dorr: “It’s the kind of news that keeps the Dorr and Mesic family moving forward.”

Norm Dorr’s son in law Steve Mesic was shot and killed by Hamilton police in June. The SIU said police were justified in shooting the 45-year old after he refused to drop a shovel he was holding near his backyard fence. Before police submitted their notes to the SIU, they were able to consult with a lawyer. But now the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that’s no longer allowed.

Dorr said: “It might have changed the officers story totally which would have changed the SIU’s story.”

Robert Chinnery’s son Andreas died in February 2011 after being shot by Hamilton police who had been called to his Barton Street appartment by a neighbour. He too is happy with the ruling: “My opinion has always been them being public servants they shouldn’t need a lawyer to make their notes. If they have got the note taking vetting not allowed then you have more of the real story.”

Former Director of the SIU Ian Scott agrees: “It always created a lot of uncertainty and you never really knew what was going on because of the client privilage we weren’t allowed to ask any questions.”

Police officers will still be allowed to retain a lawyer afetr their notes are submitted. Scott says: “When I originally started, you had one lawyer representing all of the officers and you just didn’t know what information was sloshing around between the lawyer and all of his joint clients.”

Both the Mesic family and the Chinnery family say that they would also like to see police officers wearing some sort of camera on their uniform. They say that video along with police notes would help with the investigative process even more.

Dorr says: “It doesn’t have to start with hundreds of cameras all at once. Lets just start with 6. Put them on high level officers see how they work.”

Scott continued: “I think absolutely they should be wearing lapel cameras because you want the best evidence.”

Thursday’s ruling comes after the families of two men shot by Ontario Provincial Police in separate incidents in 2009 challenged the notes provided by police.