Eight years in prison, a ‘clearly negligent’ Hamilton police officer, and no answers

Retired Crown attorney raises questions about the lack of consequences over misleading search warrants that put a man behind bars for a Stoney Creek salon robbery

A retired Crown attorney recently asked the Hamilton Police Services Board why no one in the police organization seems concerned that Ontario’s Court of Appeal found a “clearly negligent” Hamilton officer had deceived the court to obtain search warrants that helped imprison a man for eight years.

The response he got was no response. Andrew Bell was a Hamilton Crown attorney from 1988 until he retired in 2011. One of his areas of expertise was helping police draft the materials needed to obtain search warrants during investigations.

That’s why Bell took particular interest in a Feb. 18 Spectator article on the case of Adam Booth, who had been in prison since 2012 for a robbery at a Stoney Creek salon.

He was found guilty of nine charges in May 2015 and sentenced to 12 years in prison.

The case against Booth was circumstantial and the most damaging evidence that helped convict him came from two search warrants executed on Booth’s residence.

In December, the Court of Appeal overturned the convictions against Booth and ordered acquittals.

The evidence from the search warrants should never have been allowed, the Appeal Court said, because the information used by Hamilton police to obtain the search warrants was misleading.

The three Appeal Court justices had harsh words for the unnamed officer responsible for the search warrants, calling him “clearly negligent.” They cited several instances where the officer had misled the court in attempting to obtain the warrants.

“He testified that he was aware of his obligation to make full and frank disclosure, but he was patently inattentive to that obligation,” the Appeal Court ruled.

“There is no possible conclusion other than that the officer’s failure to make full and frank disclosure, while not intentionally in violation of the Charter, approaches the more serious end of the spectrum.”

When Bell read the judgment, he was “absolutely appalled.”

“I don’t know how much training you need to know that you have to be honest,” Bell said in an interview.

So Bell wrote a letter to the Police Services Board, and it became part of the agenda for the June 11 meeting.

In his letter, Bell points out that the problems with the first search warrant “reflect badly on the officer’s character.”

The second one reflects “badly on his competence” because in that case, the Appeal Court found there weren’t any grounds to justify a search warrant.

Bell asked the board to require the police service to review and change its processes so that search warrant applications “are made in accordance with the law.”

To help them better understand the issue, Bell posed a number of questions for board members.

Among the questions: How many senior officers read the Booth appeal decision?

How many senior officers who read the decision were concerned a Hamilton officer was found “incompetent and deceitful?”

Could any of them provide a persuasive explanation for why these failures happened? Does the Hamilton Police Service conduct audits on the quality of search warrant applications?

Does the service track the number of applications that are refused?

Does the service track the number of cases where officers are found to have committed a breach of Charter rights, such as an illegal search?

Bell says he’s received no response to his questions and the serious issues raised by the Court of Appeal’s decision.

“I gave the Police Services Board a very concrete problem squarely within their governance mandate,” Bell said.

“I gave them a means to check for themselves whether this is an issue or not and there was nothing.

“No one contacted me,” Bell said. “None of the elected members. None of the non-elected members of the Police Services Board.

“I didn’t even get anything back saying it’s all looked after, which I wouldn’t believe, but at least I’d know they knew what my email address was.”

A spokesperson for Mayor Fred Eisenberger, chair of the Police Services Board, referred questions to the police service “as the matter you are asking about is a police operational matter.”

Hamilton Police Service did not respond to a request for comment.

It’s not known if the officer responsible for the search warrants in the Booth case is facing any disciplinary action for misleading the court and causing a man to spend nearly eight years in prison.

Bell said he’s concerned the police board appears indifferent to the issues raised.

“How can they not care?” he asked. “What is it about their background or perspective that causes them to yawn and turn away?”