Prosecutor denies concealing allegations

In defence lawyer’s perjury trial, crown attorney denies hiding claims of police corruption

KITCHENER—— A prosecutor denied trying to sweep allegations of police corruption under the rug Monday while testifying at the trial for Toronto defence lawyer Leora Shemesh on perjury and attempt to obstruct justice charges. Crown attorney Robert Johnston told Superior Court Justice Gerald Taylor that during one of his Brampton drug cases, Shemesh told him she had seen a “nanny cam” video showing Peel Regional Police Const. Ian Dann stealing money from her client’s safe.

Told that information, Johnson said he stayed the charges against her client and asked Dann, one of the arresting officers, if any money was stolen.

The officer at first denied removing any money.

Later, he told Johnston he had taken between $400 and $2,000 and given it to Shemesh’s client in order to try and convert her into a confidential informant, Johnston testified.

Shemesh’s lawyer, Marie Henein, challenged Johnston repeatedly on how he handled that revelation, particularly in light of the fact that a Superior Court judge found that Dann and the other arresting officers colluded and commit- ted perjury in one of Shemesh’s previous cases.

“What I’m going to suggest to you, Mr. Johnston, is that after you get this information from Const. Dann … you do everything you can to clean up t this mess for him.

“Do you accept that’s what you then do?” Henein asked.

“I most certainly did not,” Johnston replied.

“I’m going to suggest to you, you make sure Constable Dann never hits the stand, right, because he never does,” Henein continued.

“I did nothing to outwardly make sure he didn’t hit the stand except in regards to this one matter that I stayed so to avoid the potential of a confidential informant being identified.”

He added: “If Const. Dann stole that money, he deserves whatever he gets.”

“Well, he did not get any retribution from you, right?” Henein replied.

Shemesh is asking the judge to stay the charges against her or exclude sworn testimony where she denied claiming a video existed, arguing she was improperly compelled to testify. The Crown alleges Shemesh attempted to obstruct justice by claiming to have a “nanny cam” video showing Dann stealing money from her client’s residence when no video existed.

Pretrial motions began Monday, and if the judge agrees to exclude her testimony, there will be no trial in September.

At the end of Monday’s proceeding, Taylor said he is troubled about Dann’s admission.

“How is that not theft?” the judge asked Johnston.

“I concur,” the prosecutor said after a long pause, “however, at the moment we were simply trying to determine what we were doing with this one case as far as whether a CI (confidential informant) relationship existed and whether we could or could not proceed and whether we could put Constable Dann on the stand to allow him to be cross-examined and perhaps the (nanny cam) videotape played. The fact there may well have been a theft” was something for Peel police internal affairs to investigate.

“That’s what I’m hung up on. It may well have been a theft … how can it be anything but?” the judge said.