Email Phone (905) 525-0005 LinkedIn Facebook Twitter
Blog Archives

Tactical Gloves – Just Gloves or Dangerous Weapons?

tactical gloves

Hard Knuckle – tactical gloves, such as the one pictured above, are available in many different styles online or in-store. However, there has been minimal discussion about whether such tacticalgloves are considered or should be considered weapons. The gloves have a piece of carbon fibre in the shape of a knuckle, perfectly in alignment with shape of the hand it fits. Carbon fibre is feather light but surprisingly hard and strong, hence the reason why it is used in Formula One Cars’ frames.

The Criminal Code of Canada, in section 2, has a broad definition for weapon and it means anything used, designed to be used or intended for use:

(a) in causing death or injury to any person, or

(b) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person.

Moreover, Brass knuckles are specifically prohibited under Part 3 of the Schedule, Prohibited Weapons, No. 8 (13) as well as Under the Ontario Prohibited Weapons Order in Ontario No.8 SOR/79-583. Brass knuckle can cause significant laceration to a victim but equally inflict pain upon the bearer or the user. Hard knuckle gloves, on the other hand, can cause equal or at least similar infliction of damage upon the recipient of force, but without any or with minimal pain to the person wearing the gloves. Therefore, the person wearing hard knuckle gloves can punch the victim repeatedly without suffering much pain themselves. It goes without mentioning that using bare hands to punch someone repeatedly usually results in the perpetrator suffering significant damage to their own hands.

pastedGraphic_1.png

A picture of Officer Montsion, shot by a witness at the scene, wearing Oakley SI Assault Glove Hard Knuckle, available online at many different websites for approximately $ 100.

Then, it should not be surprising to see that the Special Investigations Unit (SIU), on March 05, 2017, has charged an officer from Ottawa Police with Manslaughter, Aggravated Assault and an Assault with a weapon due to the result of an incident that took place on the morning of July 24, 2016. Officer Daniel Montsion, a member of Ottawa Police Direct Action Response Team (DART) was responding to a 911 call and was supposedly assisting fellow officer subdue Abdirahman Abdi, the victim with mental health issues, who had been reported for causing disturbances at a coffee shop near-by.

An eyewitness’s accounts of events suggests that while the first officer was using a baton to subdue Abdi, Montsion “….jumped into the altercation and administered a number of very heavy blows to the head and face and neck of Mr. Abdi”. Paramedics arrived at the scene after approximately 15 minutes, performed CPR and eventually transported Mr. Abdi to the hospital, but he was already dead by then.

The tactical gloves had been issued by DART and it seems that since Montsion punched Abdi several time without using any other weapons, the SIU’s decision to charge him assault with a weapon is related to the use of hard knuckle – tactical gloves. The decision seems a correct one as even without the gloves, considering the size of his bicep and forearm, Officer Montsion could have inflicted severe damage, however, with the use of a piece of carbon fibre forged in the shaped of a knuckle that sits perfectly atop the knuckle of the glove wearer cannot be anything less than a weapon. It must also be noted that such gloves are widely used by different Police Forces across Ontario, including Toronto Police. Moreover, even where such tactical gloves are not provided by the Police Force itself, officers can personally purchase and use them without any obligation to report such usage.

pastedGraphic_2.png

Further Readings:

http://www.ottawasun.com/2017/03/15/ottawa-police-to-audit-force-issued-gloves-reveals-limited-vetting

http://www.ottawasun.com/2017/03/15/hard-gloves-increase-punching-power-says-brain-doctor

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/abdirahman-abdi-ottawa-police-siu-findings-1.4008142

https://www.tacticaldistributors.com/products/oakley-si-assault-glove-hard-knuckle?variant=1161107977




Solitary Confinement – The law and practice in Canada.

Alberta Judge Rules That Keeping Inmates In Solitary Confinement Is Not Reasonable

Further pressure has been added to Canada’s prison agency to change its policy on solitary confinement.

In a recent decision, an Alberta judge released three inmates from segregation cells, concluding that prison authorities ignored factors surrounding procedural fairness, aboriginal identity and mental health history before placing them in isolation.  On July 28, 2016, staff at the maximum security Edmonton Institution placed Matthew Hamm, Shawn Keepness and Taylor Tobin in solitary confinement after a confidential informant told the staff that the individuals planned to assault a group of prison guards.

solitary confinementWhen individuals are placed in solitary confinement, staff are legally obliged to give reasons with detailed explanations behind their decision.  The inmates were denied procedural fairness and not given the right to counsel, therefore, the inmates, working without lawyers filed an application of habeas corpus.  This application led to a judicial review of the decision.

A habeas corpus is a medieval writ stating “no man shall be arrested or imprisoned except by lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land”.  Today this writ allows for a judicial review of prison actions that further erode an inmate’s residual liberties.  Before Mr. Hamm was able to exercise his rights and argue his transfer before a judge, he was sent to solitary confinement.

Justice Joanne Veit of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench states:

“Given the basis on which the inmates were sent to solitary confinement, and the individual mental health and aboriginal circumstances of each inmate, the decisions to send each of them to solitary confinement is not reasonable”.

The judge agreed with the argument of the inmates, stating that “upon reviewing all the information that the Correctional Service withheld from the inmates… In the totality of the evidence on this application, I am unable to conclude that the institution had reliable and credible information that these applicants were planning a serious assault on three identified guards”.

In further support of the inmates, she noted that the institution had never laid charges, criminal or institutional, for their alleged conspiracy of beating the jail guards.

Justice Veit, found it concerning that the reasons given by the correctional officer’s decisions did not address any aboriginal or mental health issues.  These factors should have been given considerable weight and were not even mentioned.  It is important to note that Mr. Hamm suffered from bi-polar disorder and both Mr. Keepness and Mr. Tobin are aboriginal.

Hopefully this decision will shed light on solitary confinement and inmate rights in Ontario.  There is no doubt that prison reform must take place.  Prisons are underfunded and both inmates and prison guards suffer from the consequences of poor policy and underfunding.




Password Rights? Police want your password.

Police Want Your Cell Phone Password

On August 16, 2016, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police passed a resolution calling for  a legal measure to unlock digital devices.  Police claim that this resolution is necessary due to high levels of criminal activity being stored and encrypted on cellular devices.  Currently, there is nothing legislated in Canadian law that forces anyone to provide their password to law enforcement for their digital device.

RCMP Assistant Commissioner, Joe Oliver, made several statements regarding the urgency to attack this policy.  Oliver states:

“From child abusers to mobsters — [they] are operating online in almost complete anonymity with the help of tools that mask identities and messages, a phenomenon police call “going dark.”

“The victims in the digital space are real… Canada’s law and policing capabilities must keep pace with the evolution of technology.”

Opposing the resolution, David Christopher, a spokesman for OpenMedia, a group that keeps the Internet surveillance free, claims that the Chiefs proposed scheme is disproportionate because unlocking someone’s laptop, unlocks “the key to [their] whole life”.

The federal government has started looking at issues of cybersecurity that will balance issues of privacy and online freedoms of Canadians.

password rights police search

Background on Canadian Privacy Law

R v Spencer was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2014 that ruled that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in Internet usage information.  This meant that law enforcement agencies that wish to acquire subscriber information must obtain a warrant.  Prior to this decision, law enforcement were simply able to request the information from Internet providers without a warrant.

In Spencer, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the argument that Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (“PIPEDA”) allowed Internet service providers to provide subscriber information with a a simple request.

Following the ruling of this case, Spencer was hailed by privacy law advocates as a monumental shift towards establishing meaningful protection of privacy and fundamental notions of liberty and human rights.  However, law enforcement worries and argues that this decision creates new challenges for protecting potential child victims, specifically in the realm of child pornography.

Looking Ahead

The issue of privacy and the Internet is nothing new.  Since the advent of the Internet, there has been a constant balancing act between the privacy interests of individuals and the rights of law enforcement.  If law enforcement are granted the right to access an accused’s password without consent of the individual, it will no doubt be the subject of arguments infringing under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We Can Help

Have you been part of a police investigation where law enforcement has demanded the password to your electronic device?  Do you have questions regarding cellphone or computer searches? If so, trust the criminal law experts at Smordin Law.  We are available to answer all your questions regarding PIPEDA, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Criminal Code.




Hearsay Evidence – Learn the facts.

What is Hearsay Evidence?

I am sure that most people have heard the term “hearsay” when it comes to evidence.  Television shows, including Suits, makes hearsay a household term, but what does it mean?

Hearsay is an out of court statement that is offered to prove the truth of its contents.  The key to this definition is that hearsay, is a statement made “outside of court”.  This includes implied statements, which can be any assertion revealed through actions instead of words.  This occurs when an action is meant to communicate a message.  An example of that may be someone making a gesture implying physical violence or threat, or someone nodding their head to signal “yes” or “no”.

Recognizing Hearsay

Hearsay is meant to be excluded as evidence due to the fundamental concern that hearsay evidence cannot be tested for the truth of its contents.  Our adversarial system rests upon calling witnesses who can give evidence under oath.  This way they can be observed to analyze their demeanour and can be subject to cross-examination.  Statements made out of court simply cannot be tested.  In R v Starr, Justice Iacobucci accepted the following explanation for hearsay evidence:

“Hearsay statements are excluded from evidence in trials because of the difficulty of testing their reliability.  If a person who actually observed a fact is not in court, but a statement he made to someone is introduced in evidence, there is no way of inquiring into a person’s perception, memory, narration or sincerity.  His statement about the fact might be false because he misperceived it or did not remember it correctly, or he may have misled the person to whom it was made because he used words not commonly used, or he may have lied about it.  These factors, which determine the reliability of his statement, can only be tested if he is in the courtroom and subject to cross examination (R v Starr).”

Consider this following example to illustrate the need for cross examination:

Say for example someone is being prosecuted for drunk driving.  Bob, a witness, states that the passenger of the car driven by the allegedly drunk driver, said that the driver was drinking and was drunk.  The problem with this statement is that Bob is giving evidence of a statement that was made out of court for the truth of its contents; therefore, resulting in a hearsay statement.

Think of the importance of cross examination: a skilled lawyer would attack the validity of this statement by asking questions such as; What did you observe the accused drinking? How did you know that it was alcohol? Over what period of time did you see the accused drinking the alcohol? Why did you conclude that the accused was drunk.  Therefore, without this witness being able to testify.

Ask the Professionals

Are you unsure about hearsay statements? Are you concerned that someone is trying to use a hearsay statement against you?  Know your rights and trust the experienced professionals at Smordin Law.  We carefully analyze and dissect every statement made against you to be sure that your rights are not violated.  If you have any questions or concerns, call Smordin Law for your free consultation.

hearsay




Most Popular Posts