Zameer case proves why trials matter
There may be 1,001 good reasons for not granting bail.
But the case of Umar Zameer wasn’t one of them.
That much has become increasingly obvious as the first-degree murder trial for the Brampton accountant is unfolding.
We still don’t know why Superior Court Judge Jill Copeland made the highly unusual decision last September to release Zameer on bail pending this trial. That determination — the reasons for it — remain under a publication ban.
Copeland subsequently ruled against allowing even a partial lifting when asked to do so in December by Zameer’s defence lawyer. What Nader Hasan told the court on that occasion: “It’s an application being brought to protect, in essence to salvage, the fair trial rights of my client.”
There was urgent cause, Hasan contended, to adjust the narrative that had taken hold with the public about a man accused of killing a cop, a story arc, he said, based on disinformation and lack of information that was playing out on unhinged social media. But also, with only slightly more restrained commentary, from elected officials and policing officials.
It goes against the grain of this journalist to chastise anybody for speaking on matters of deep public concern. Often I’ve envied how cops and other authorities in the U.S. quickly disclose details in criminal events, before and after an individual has been charged. Americans have a different ethos, more transparent, with immediacy. In Canada, courts and cops cleave to the view that we should know as little as possible, to maintain the integrity of the investigation, to protect the rights of an accused, to ensure a fair trial and to prevent tainting the jury pool.
These are righteous principles, but, in truth, with freewheeling social media these days, it’s impossible to draw the curtain on facts, much less speculation.
Within hours of Copeland releasing 31-year-old Zameer on a $335,000 surety with significant restrictions, her decision was denounced by those who were indignant and perplexed that a man accused of killing a Toronto cop wasn’t kept behind bars.
Premier Doug Ford, then-mayor John Tory, Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown, then-chief of Toronto police James Ramer and the head of the police association really should have shut up.
Ford, on X, formerly Twitter: “This is beyond comprehension,” he tweeted, after deleting an earlier tweet that convicted Zameer. “It’s completely unacceptable that the person charged for this heinous crime is now out on bail.”
Tory on X: “It is wrong and represents one more argument supporting my long-standing call for bail reform.”
Ramer, at a press conference shortly after the event, described the killing as “intentional and deliberate.”
Brown on X: “This is disgusting. It is very disturbing that the person charged for this heinous crime is now out on bail.”
Toronto Police Association president Jon Reid told CP24 that it was “appalling that we have an individual that’s charged with first-degree murder, let alone the murder of a police officer, released on bail.”
Const. Jeffrey Northrup, a 31-year veteran cop, was killed on July 2, 2021, when he was struck by a vehicle in the parking garage beneath Nathan Phillips Square, as he was responding to a reported stabbing in the area. It is entirely understandable that a shaken city grieved the death of a police officer in the line of duty. Northrup, father of three, was 55.
But clearly — or not so clearly because the routine bail publication ban is still in place — there were compelling reasons for Copeland to release Zameer. Many of the disputed circumstances that underlie the event have already surfaced at the trial that began nine days ago. Zameer has pleaded not guilty.
The defence has outright accused witness officers, those who were there that night as events unfolded, of lying and colluding and cooking up evidence, presenting “a story you made up,” including the critical claim that Zameer’s BMW — with his eight-months-pregnant wife and their child inside — hit Northrup head-on as Zameer was attempting to flee. The only CCTV footage available, from a distant camera, is blurry and doesn’t confirm crucial details.
Before Superior Court Justice Anne Molloy, Hasan is arguing that it was a tragic accident, that Zameer was not aware he struck Northrup in a panic when confronted by two strangers, believing his family was under threat, not realizing Northrup, in plain clothes — as were other cops responding — was an officer.
While not knowing the thrust of Copeland’s bail approval — I’m not breaking any ban here — the wide divergence between defence and prosecution narratives gives reasonable buttress to the bail decision.
Presumption of innocence is at the heart of our justice system and, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly reminded, it is not appropriate to punish people with incarceration before an individual has been tried and convicted unless there are clear risks — such as fleeing the jurisdiction — that would mitigate against bail.
A finding of Zaheer’s guilt or innocence will be up to the jury. Where it always should have been.