A British Columbia Supreme Court justice has declared a mistrial in the case of a man killed by Vancouver police.

The family of Thomas Evon Stevenson had sued the City of Vancouver and two of its police officers for damages for wrongful death. The trial by judge and jury was in progress when the family’s lawyer, Cameron Ward, applied for an appropriate remedy to deal with alleged defence misconduct. On October 11, 2005, Madam Justice Boyd delivered oral reasons granting a mistrial, stating that “there is no acceptable excuse for defence counsel’s delay in producing…documents”. A new trial date has not yet been set.

…….

A coroner’s jury heard evidence about the fatal incident at the coroner’s inquest during the week of January 12-15, 2004.

On December 7, 2002, a Vancouver police officer came upon a car parked in the 400 block of East Pender Street that had been reported stolen. He disabled it, staked it out and called for assistance. When a man opened the unlocked door and got in, two police officers approached. The man ignored police commands to get out, locked the door and attempted to light a pipe with his bare hands. Moments later both officers fired a total of six bullets into the car, killing Stevenson instantly.

Some 60 Vancouver Police Department members converged on the scene and ambulances were called. The police did not tell the ambulance attendants how Stevenson had sustained his injuries.

VPD Identification Unit photographs of the scene depicted a children’s toy plastic pistol lying behind the left rear wheel of the car, metres from Stevenson’s dead body. At a VPD media briefing two days later, VPD Inspector Chris Beach stated that the replice handgun was in Stevenson’s lap or waist area before the shooting and that he had made a threatening gesture, as if to reach for it.

The VPD investigated the homicide, even though two of its members were involved. VPD Investigators did not interview any police officers, including the two who fired the shots. Those two members were not separated or taken into custody. They left work and consulted the same lawyer, who delivered prepared statements to the investigators some fifteen days later. VPD investigators did not attempt to reconstruct the incident to determine whether the explanation for the shooting was plausible. The autopsy report revealed that two bullets went through both Stevenson’s bare hands before entering his chest. The plastic gun was undamaged and did not have Stevenson’s fingerprints on it.

The coroner’s jury made the following recommendations to then Solicitor General Rich Coleman:

“1. Implement a special investigations unit similar to the SIU in Ontario, independent of the police, to investigate circumstances involving the police which result in serious injury, assault or death.

2. Circumstances involving the police which result in serious injury, assault or death be investigated by members of police investigation team independent of police force under investigation.

3. Specific protocol be developed related to the investigation of police shooting.”

None of these recommendations have been adopted.

After waiting for more than fifteen months, Robert Bagnell’s family has finally received a police summary of the police investigation into his death, which occurred on June 23, 2004 while he was in Vancouver police custody.

Vancouver Police Department Chief Constable Jamie Graham has failed to comply with the law requiring him to deliver an investigative report summary to the Bagnell family. The Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner has confirmed that the summary was due September 28, 2005 pursuant to s. 57(1) of the Police Act.

Police Complaint Commissioner Dirk Ryneveld has the final investigative report and a 75 page executive summary of it, but he is refusing to show either document to the Bagnell family.

Robert Bagnell, 44, died on June 23, 2004. The VPD initially told his family that Robert died of a drug overdose, then a month later revealed to the media that they had Tasered him twice just before he died. Another month after that, the VPD acknowledged that he was not a threat to anyone and that he was not involved in the commission of a crime when they sent an ERT (SWAT) team into the washroom Robert was in. The police said Bagnell was shocked with 50,000 volts so they could “rescue” him from a “fire” in his building. Although the family doubts these claims, they have been unable to obtain copies of police or autopsy reports and they have been unable to get an inquest scheduled, though one is mandatory.

Some Vancouver social activists have recently expressed concerns that homeless people may be targeted by police as the 2010 Olympic Games draw nearer. These fears are rooted in recent experiences in Salt Lake City and Atlanta, where homeless people were arrested or shipped out of town by the authorities as the Olympic Games got under way.

I was invited to comment on this issue from a civil liberties perspective. Since my remarks may have been misinterpreted by some, including a newly appointed member of Canada’s Senate, I want to repeat my views here.

I am concerned that the Vancouver Police Department’s “breaching” policy may be abused. “Breaching” is police slang for taking people into custody for breach of the peace pursuant to s. 31 of the Criminal Code, then releasing them later in another part of the city. When six Vancouver police constables took three people from Granville Mall to Stanley Park and assaulted them in the middle of the night, they relied on the VPD’s “breaching” policy to attempt to justify their actions.

As long as the VPD condones the practice of “breaching”, there is a risk that police officers may feel that they have the authority to toss people into paddy wagons and drive them across town, whether or not any offence has been committed. We must all be vigilant to endure that the civil liberties of Vancouver residents, including the disadvantaged among us, are not infringed in this fashion, now or in the future.

After enduring a fifteen month wait, the family of Robert Bagnell may finally learn something about how he died. The Victoria Police Department’s “external investigation report” was delivered to OPCC head Dirk Ryneveld and to VPD Chief Graham on September 14th. By law, Chief Graham must deliver a summary of the report to the Bagnell family by Wednesday, September 28, 2005.

Robert Bagnell, 44, died on June 23, 2004. The VPD initially told his family that Robert died of a drug overdose, then a month later revealed to the media that they had Tasered him twice just before he died. Another month after that, the VPD acknowledged that he was not a threat to anyone and that he was not involved in the commission of a crime when they sent an ERT (SWAT) team into the washroom Robert was in. The police said Bagnell was shocked with 50,000 volts so they could “rescue” him from a “fire” in his building. Although the family doubts these claims, they have been unable to obtain copies of police or autopsy reports and they have been unable to get an inquest scheduled, though one is mandatory.

In another recent development, the Supreme Court of British Columbia has dismissed the Bagnell family’s application for a Court order compelling the coroner to schedule an inquest and deliver relevant documents to the Bagnell family.

Read the decision.