Crown accused of misleading judge

Prosecutor denies she participated in coverup

KITCHENER, ONT— A federal Crown attorney was accused Thursday of misleading a judge in order to cover up for a dirty cop and trap thorn-in-the-side Toronto defence lawyer Leora Shemesh into committing perjury.

Shemesh is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice for allegedly telling various lawyers that she had seen a “nanny cam” video of a Peel Regional Police drug officer stealing money from a safe in her client’s home and then allegedly lying about it under oath.

On Thursday, her lawyer, Marie Henein, grilled Lois McKenzie, a Brampton-based Crown working for the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, for a second day. McKenzie conducted the cross-examination of Shemesh that led to the perjury charge after persuading Justice Bruce Durno that Shemesh’s testimony was needed to clear the air about the nanny cam video.

Henein is arguing in pretrial motions that Shemesh’s constitutional rights against self-incrimination were violated when she was forced into the witness box under subpoena. She is asking Superior Court Justice Gerald Taylor to stay the charges before the trial begins in September.

Henein is alleging prosecutors orchestrated a coverup to protect Const. Ian Dann while trying to “catch” out the troublesome defence lawyer who, in an earlier case involving Dann, had already exposed the police as courtroom liars.

Dann initially denied stealing any money, but later claimed he had taken some cash to convert Shemesh’s client into a confidential informant.

“I’m going to suggest to you, Ms. McKenzie, that you deliberately misled the court into thinking that Ms. Shemesh may have simply made all of this up, this allegation of theft,” Henein said to McKenzie.

“I did not do that,” replied the prosecutor.

“You never tell the court, ‘She’s right, he did take money’ … she’s not pulling this out of thin air, it is true, he took money,’ ” Henein said.

McKenzie agreed she did not, but insisted prosecutors were concerned that disclosing any information would violate confidential informant privilege, despite the fact the public prosecution service had already concluded Dann’s confidential informant claim was bogus.

The pretrial arguments resume Friday.