The coroner’s inquest into the death of Kevin St. Arnaud, 29, ended late yesterday in Vanderhoof with the jury classifying the death as a homicide. They heard evidence that RCMP constable Ryan Sheremetta, then 22, shot him three times in the chest from a distance of some 5.5 metres in the early morning hours of December 19, 2004. Kevin was intoxicated, unarmed, had his hands up and was holding only a white plastic bag and two plastic pill bottles just before he was killed.

Cst. Sheremetta testified he feared for his life and fired all three bullets from flat on his back as Kevin approached him in a menacing manner, shouting, “you’re gonna have to shoot me motherfucker”. However, his colleague Cst. Colleen Erickson, a twenty four year veteran of the RCMP, saw the shooting from nearby and testified that Sheremetta was standing “in a combat stance” when he fired the shots and that she did not hear the alleged threat. A civilian eyewitness reported that Sheremetta was standing just before the shots rang out, and that Kevin had his hands up in surrender.

The forensic evidence of three experts revealed that both men were standing, that Kevin was stationary just before he collapsed, and that the three fatal bullets entered his body in a downward trajectory of 30 to 40 degrees. The primary investigator, RCMP Staff Sgt. Glenn Krebs, conceded that he concluded in April of 2005 that there were “inaccuracies” in Sheremetta’s account , but his superior, RCMP Staff Sgt. Flath nonetheless subsequently advised Crown Counsel that there was “insufficient evidence” to support criminal charges.

The family was not allowed to make any submissions to the five members of the jury, whose identities remain unknown. Kevin’s mother, Delores Young, had wanted to suggest three recommendations to the jury: that the police not be allowed to investigate themselves in serious cases, that coroner’s inquests be conducted in a more timely manner and that the deceased’s family receive legal aid to enable them to have legal representation at such inquests.

The BC Solicitor General is responsible for coroners and police. In BC, unlike Ontario, Quebec and the UK, police investigate fatal incidents involving their own members. Their investigative report is eventually given to the coroner, who releases copies to the family only if they agree to preserve confidentiality over the file. Under the present Chief Coroner, it often takes several years to hold an inquest, which is a public hearing designed to assure the community that the circumstances of the death have not been overlooked, concealed or ignored. An inquest is mandatory whenever someone dies in police custody, but it may not find fault. Although lawyers and other representatives of the coroners office and the police appear at an inquest at public expense, there is no provision for public funding to assist the family of the deceased.

Cst. Sheremetta reportedly remains on active duty with the RCMP in Kamloops, as does Cst. Paul Koester, who fatally shot Ian Bush in Houston, BC in October of 2005. Kevin St. Arnaud leaves three young children, his parents, two younger brothers and a sister.

THE FIVE BIG “INACCURACIES”

Crown Counsel based its decision not to charge Sheremetta on his statement to investigators, despite the investigators’ conclusion that there were major “inaccuracies” in it. Here they are:

Sheremetta testified under oath that he fired from his flat on his back after falling, that he feared for his life because Kevin advanced on him with his right hand in his pocket and that in his RCMP career to that point (23 months in Vanderhoof) he had taken concealed handguns away from suspects “many times”.

According to the testimony of two eyewitnesses, one being a 24 year veteran of the force, and according to extensive forensic analysis of the scene, Sheremetta did not fall or fire from his back. According to the RCMP eyewitness, Kevin’s hands were both visible and not in his pockets at the tme of the shooting. Although the RCMP checked its records, it was unable to produce evidence that Sheremetta had ever relieved anyone of a concealed handgun before the incident.

THE RCMP INVESTIGATIVE TEAM

The homicide investigation was handled by RCMP members from Vanderhoof, Prince George and the Lower Mainland. Here is the list of participants:

Cst. Huisman, Cst. Muraca, Cst. Foy, Cst. Brown, Cst. Davidson, Cst. Davies, Cst. Michaud, Cst. Sullivan, Cst. Logan, Cst. Hudyma, Cst. Erickson, Cst. Caira, Cpl. MacLellan, Cpl. Beach, Cpl. Paul, Cpl. Gillis, Sgt. Krebs, Sgt. Doll, Sgt. Ward, Sgt. Gallant, Sgt. Gauthier, Sgt. Chanin, Staff Sgt. Kowalewich, Staff Sgt. Flath, Insp. Van de Walle, Insp. Hopkins, Insp. DeGrand, Supt. Killaly, Supt. Clark and civilian RCMP members Hall and Daborn.

By the way, none of these investigators contacted the occupants of the residence facing the shooting scene, about 100 metres away, to ask them what they saw or heard.

Kevin St. Arnaud

The first two days of the inquest into the police shooting death of Kevin St. Arnaud on December 19, 2004 have been completed. The two RCMP officers involved in the incident are scheduled to testify Tuesday morning, January 23rd, at the Vanderhoof courthouse. The inquest starts at 9:30 a.m.

Last Thursday, forensic pathologist Dr. James McNaughton testified that Kevin St. Arnaud, 29, was killed by three gunshots fired in a downward trajectory into his chest from a distant range. He said he could not comment on an expert reconstruction showing that the shooter’s likely standing position was between 2.9 meters (8 ft.) and 5.5 meters (18 ft.) from where the body came to rest. Dr. McNaughton said the trajectory was consistent with the shooter firing from a standing position with his gun at eye level if both he and the deceased were standing. Dr. McNaughton also testified that St. Arnaud had a blood alcohol level of .20%, indicating intoxication, but had no other drugs (aside from a small amount of aspirin) in his tissues or fluids.

Friends who were with Kevin St. Arnaud at a Christmas party earlier on the night of the shooting described him as being happy and as the “life of the party”. He was also described as being a gifted artist and intelligent and conscientious worker.

Another acquaintance, Mike Buckley, testified that St. Arnaud came to his home and woke him up after midnight. According to Buckley, St. Arnaud was very drunk and had one hand in a professionally wrapped bandage. When St. Arnaud refused to leave, Buckley said he would have used physical force against St. Arnaud, would have “laid into him”, but it wouldn’t have been right, since St. Arnaud was obviously drunk and had only one good hand.

Local resident Abe Klassen testified he saw a police officer chase a suspect into the soccer field, yelling “stop”. The suspect stopped, turned and threw both hands in the air in apparent surrender. A few moments later, Klassen heard two gunshots in quick succession. He next saw the suspect lying on the field and two police officers approaching him.

Police reported the shooting over the radio at 1:09 a.m. December 19, 2004. No weapons of any kind were found on or near St. Arnaud. The RCMP themselves investigated the shooting, as is B.C. practice, and no charges were ever laid. Observers cannot recall charges ever being laid against a police officer in British Columbia as a result of a fatal shooting.

A few months after St. Arnaud was killed, in another northern B.C. community, Houston, another unarmed young man was shot to death by an RCMP officer. The RCMP investigated the homicide of Ian Bush and no charges were laid in that case either. The mandatory inquest into Ian Bush’s death has not yet been held.

Kevin St. Arnaud

A coroner’s inquest into the death of Kevin St. Arnaud, 29, is finally scheduled to commence January 18, 2007 in Vanderhoof, B.C., more than two years after the young man was killed by police.

On December 19, 2004, Cst. Sheremetta of the Vanderhoof RCMP was pursuing Mr. St. Arnaud on foot across a soccer field because Mr. St. Arnaud was suspected to have recently committed a break and enter in a local shopping mall. According to a letter from Crown Counsel explaining that no charges would be laid against Sheremetta, Mr. St. Arnaud “came to a stop and put his arms in the air” when “Cst. Sheremetta was approximately fifteen to twenty feet from Mr. St. Arnaud.” When Mr. St. Arnaud “advanced” toward the officer, Cst. Sheremetta fired three bullets into Mr. St. Arnaud’s chest, killing him. Cst. Sheremetta’s female partner was nearby, watching this happen.

According to the letter from Crown Counsel, “no weapons were found on Mr. St. Arnaud.” There is no suggestion in the letter that Mr. St. Arnaud had anything in his possession that could be mistaken for a weapon: no penknife, no TV remote, no portable CD player…just some plastic pill containers. The letter does not explain how a person brandishing pill bottles can cause two police officers to fear for their lives and thereby justify such a shooting.

The inquest is expected to run until the end of the month.

After presiding over a week long civil trial, the Honourable Mr. Justice Tysoe has reserved judgment in Ward v. City of Vancouver et al, SCBC Action No. S030038, Vancouver Registry.

Some of the background to this curious case can be found in the interlocutory judgment of Romilly, J.:

Click here to read the document.

October 5 update: Betty Krawczyk appeared before the Court today to learn that her criminal contempt of court trial has been adjourned to January 29, 2007. Mr. Ward withdrew as counsel, stating “Mrs. Krawczyk has instructed me to advise the Court that she perceives this prosecution to be unfair and an officially induced abuse of process. As a result of the ruling [that evidence of abuse of process is irrelevant and inadmissible] she feels she has no further need or desire for legal counsel and will defend herself when the trial resumes.”

September 29 update: Madam Justice Brown delivered oral reasons for judgment today, concluding that evidence intended to support an application for a stay of the prosecution as an abuse of process is irrelevant and inadmissible. The Crown then closed its case, after some eight days of testimony and argument. Ms. Krawczyk is scheduled to appear in BC Supreme Court on October 5, 2006, when dates for the criminal contempt trial’s continuation will be discussed.

September 25 update: The criminal trial of Betty Krawczyk resumes Tuesday, September 26th with legal argument on whether she can adduce evidence intended to establish that her prosecution for criminal contempt of court is an abuse of the court process. She seeks to call the Attorney General of BC or his delegate to explain why the police did not simply enforce the law, rendering an injunction order, an enforcement order and contempt proceedings unnecessary. The trial enters its sixth day, with more Crown evidence scheduled.

Renowned author, activist and environmentalist Betty Krawczyk faces trial this week on allegations that she disobeyed a court order pronounced in a civil action brought by the companies engaged in the Sea to Sky Highway improvement project. The Attorney General of BC has alleged that the symbolic actions of Krawczyk, 78, in putting herself in the path of excavation equipment to protest the destruction of Eagleridge Bluffs constitute criminal contempt of court.

Earlier, Madam Justice Brenda Brown rejected Krawczyk’s assertion that she had a constitutional right to trial by jury and is hearing the criminal case alone, without a jury. It is unclear what punishment “Betty K” will face if convicted. The trial is being conducted in the high security, multi-million dollar Vancouver courtroom built for the Air India trial.