5/26 – Court’s View of Perjury and Breach of Trust by Police in Ontario – R. v Feeney

Here is a complete team of police caught misleading the crown and the court: https://canlii.ca/t/fvh7n

They jumped the gun, excuse tech pun, and searched without a warrant and then lied that they had not.

[18]        There is no dispute that the accused all breached the trust confided in them as police officers by committing the offences of which they have been convicted.  As observed by the Crown, that “Police have a public duty to uphold the law, and the commission of the offence of obstruction of justice or perjury by a police officer is an extremely serious breach of trust which risks miscarriages of justice, and which undermines the integrity of the administration of justice.” In R. v. Feeney et al (2008), 2008 ONCA 756 (CanLII), 238 C.C.C. (3d) 49 (Ont. C.A.) the court dealt with the issue of the sentence appropriate for police officers who had assaulted a prisoner, and approved the views expressed in R. v. Cusack (1978), 1978 CanLII 2283 (NS CA), 41 C.C.C. (2d) 289 (N.S.C.A.),

In my opinion, the paramount consideration in this case is the protection of the public from offences of this sort being committed by persons who are given special authority by our law to deal with individual members of society, and to deter such persons from acting in breach of their trust. All citizens must have confidence that police officers who are invested with substantial rights of interference with individual liberties exercise these rights with a scrupulous propriety, and that any failure to so act will result not only in dismissal from the position of trust but also in the imposition of SUBSTANTIAL punishment.

The commission of offences by police officers has been considered on numerous occasions by the Courts, and the unanimous finding has been that their sentence SHOULD BE M*O*R*E SEVERE than that of an ordinary person who commits the same crime, because of the position of public trust which they held at the time of the offence and THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF ITS PERPETRATION.

their sentence SHOULD BE M*O*R*E SEVERE than that of an ordinary person who commits the same crime,


Leave a Reply