Constables not guilty of writing bogus tickets
Judge suspicious of explanations but found reasonable doubt
FOUR HAMILTON POLICE officers accused of writing fake tickets that targeted known vulnerable people downtown have been found not guilty on all charges.
While delivering her verdict, Ontario Court Justice Pamela Borghesan called some of the officers’ explanations suspicious, but on balance found the prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt any of the tickets were faked.
She also commented on the seeming “futility” of police repeatedly ticketing the same vulnerable people, many of them affected by homelessness, poverty and addiction.
The tickets were not paid or challenged in court and seem to only be a “public display to show police are doing something,” Borghesan said.
Constables Stephen Travale, Shawn Smith, Bhupesh Gulati and Daniel Williams faced charges of fabricating evidence and obstructing justice related to allegedly writing fake provincial offence notice tickets in 2014 while they were members of the highprofile ACTION (Addressing Crime Trends
in Our Neighbourhoods) unit.
Crown prosecutor David King had argued the officers targeted marginalized people — many of whom are frequently ticketed for everything from public drinking to riding their bikes on sidewalks — out of laziness and a belief they wouldn’t be caught.
King declined to comment on the verdict outside court, saying, “Everything I have to say I said in court.”
The investigation began after copies of tickets that are supposed to go to the offender were discovered in a bin for shredding on Sept. 19, 2014. The discovery launched a lengthy and large investigation into the officers, who have been suspended for nearly two years.
Borghesan’s harshest words were reserved for Travale, the most senior officer in the group. At one point, she said Travale, charged in relation to six tickets, wasn’t believable.
In reference to one ticket, she said Travale was “attempting to shoehorn a story” to fit with other evidence.
His lawyer, Kevin McGilly, declined to comment outside court.
Borghesan said she found Williams, the rookie on the team who was charged in relation to two tickets, reliable and believable.
When speaking about Smith, charged in relation to four tickets, and Gulati, charged in relation to three, Borghesan expressed uncertainty and suspicion about the veracity of some tickets. But again, she ultimately found there was reasonable doubt.
“We’re pleased. It’s the right verdict,” Gary Clewley, who represented Williams and Gulati, said outside court.
In their testimony, the officers said they fell into bad habits, with sloppy or non-existent note-taking.
“They didn’t blame it on anyone else,” Clewley said, noting the toll the lengthy case has taken on his clients.
This was echoed by lawyer Daniel Moore, whose client, Smith, also testified to struggling with possible PTSD and alcohol abuse, along with sloppy note-taking.
Moore expressed relief at the verdict, but also noted “there will be a cloud hanging over (Smith) for a long time.”
A big part of ACTION’s job is giving out tickets patrolling the downtown on foot or by bike. The case has highlighted issues in the relationship between police and the community’s vulnerable population, some who testified in court about being repeatedly ticketed despite no means or willingness to pay.
Borghesan touched on this in her verdict, saying “the futility of the exercise is apparent.” However, she also noted that it wasn’t her place to judge the policies of a police service.
Clewley called the ACTION strategy “a Band-Aid that got peeled back,” adding that the unit needs to be reexamined.
“It was clear from the evidence that the sense of futility was real and doesn’t seem like it was doing what it was supposed to be doing,” Moore said.
The verdict is “something we anticipated from Day 1,” said Hamilton Police Association president Clint Twolan.
“They made mistakes, got lazy but there was nothing criminal,” he added.
Hamilton police issued a press release stating the service was aware of the court proceedings, but declined to comment given matters remain before the court and that future Police Services Act (PSA) proceedings are pending against the four officers.
In court, the investigators declined to comment.
In February, lead investigator Staff Sgt. Steve Hrab said: “They deceived the court system; that’s what we believe, and by deceiving the court system, it basically paints all the police officers in the city in a bad light.”
Another constable charged in the case, Staci Tyldesely, is being tried separately.