Harriet Nahanee, an aboriginal elder and activist, died recently at the age of 71. She had just been released from the Surrey Pretrial Centre after serving a two week jail sentence for contempt of court for disobeying a court order made in a civil proceeding in which she was not named as a party.

Harriet was one of numerous local people who congregated at a Sea to Sky Highway construction site to demonstrate their displeasure with the government decision to blast an overland route through the sensitive Eagleridge Bluffs ecosystem, rather than build a much less obtrusive tunnel.

No one was charged with any criminal offence as a result of the protest demonstration. Rather, according to the anachronsitic British Columbia method of dealing with such matters, the corporate contractors, Peter Kiewit & Sons Ltd., commenced a sham* civil lawsuit and obtained an injunction restraining anyone from being in the vicinity of the work site. Harriet and others were accused of contempt of court when they ignored the order, and they were sanctioned accordingly, in a process described by another B.C. jurist as “officially induced abuse of process”, the use of civil proceedings for a collateral criminal objective.

Ironically, 71 year old Harriet Nahanee, a gentle soul, frail and in ill health, spent more time in prison than serial convicted sex offender Tom Ellison, a middle aged teacher who sexually exploited his students, or Doug Walls, who was convicted of defrauding a bank of about a million dollars. Both were given conditional sentences, meaning they will spend no time in jail.

Here is the excerpt from the judge’s reasons on sentencing, fully explaining why Harriet Nahanee was sent to jail for fourteen days:

“I will next deal with Harriet Nahanee. Ms. Nahanee did not admit her contempt. She took the position that the court did not have jurisdiction over her and left the court, after I gave reasons on the preliminary issue involving the Royal Proclamation. She did not attend the balance of her contempt hearing. Ms. Nahanee demonstrated no remorse and did not apologize for her conduct. She was one of the most prominent and public contemnors. She, of course, made no submissions regarding an appropriate sanction and I have no information regarding her circumstances. I will sentence her to 14 days.”

One could well ask;

Did Harriet Nahanee’s punishment fit the “crime” of attempting to speak out against the desecration of the environment?

By jailing her, a respected aboriginal elder, did the court do anything to enhance respect for the rule of law?

*In my opinion, the civil action is a sham because it was not commenced for any reason other than to procure the arrest and punishment of those persons whose conduct the corporate plaintiffs found objectionable. As at least one judge has said, a proceeding like this is nothing less than an abuse of the court’s process, a civil action commenced for the collateral purpose of imposing criminal sanctions.

Josiah Wood, Q.C. has delivered his long-awaited report on the British Columbia municipal police complaints process. He essentially endorses the status quo, but recommends enhanced civilian oversight powers. Unfortunately, he recommends that police continue to investigate themselves, consigning this province’s system to the dark ages for the foreseeable future.

As Mr. Wood puts it, the investigative responsibility “should remain with the police until such time it becomes apparent that civilian oversight in this province cannot be successful unless responsibility for investigating police complaints is transferred to a completely independent investigative unit…I am not persuaded that point has yet been reached in this province.” (p. 51)

Well, Mr. Wood, with all due deference and respect, speaking as one who has been involved in a host of cases involving serious injury or death, I beg to differ. The police investigations in those cases have invariably been grossly deficient. In fact, my observations mirror the findings of Mr. Wood himself, arising from his file audit:

“Some investigations lacked investigative rigour. This revealed itself in the following ways: investigations going only far enough to justify the underlying police conduct…failing or refusing to interview other witnesses…failing to investigate in a timely fashion…failing to conduct a full investigation of potentially criminal allegations…” (p. C-35)

In the files I have handled, without exception, the police investigation of police-involved incidents of use of force resulting in serious injury or death have “lacked investigative rigour”. Here’s just one example: the year long VPD internal investigation into complaints that members of the VPD “crowd control unit” used excessive force when they clubbed demonstrators outside the Hyatt Hotel. The investigators failed to identify or interview a single police officer involved, though the entire incident was captured on videotape and complete records were available of who was on duty. The complainants and their backgrounds were extensively questioned and probed, but not one police officer was even named, let alone questioned!

For me, no amount of “civilian oversight” is a substitute for independent civilian investigation of serious matters, from the very outset. That is the way more enlightened jurisdictions deal with these cases; places like Ontario, Quebec and Great Britain. The government of Northern Ireland, in particular, has recognized that civilian investigation is imperative to restore and retain public confidence in policing.

Here’s my gratuitous advice to anyone who has the misfortune to be a victim of an apparent use of excessive force by police: if you have the resources, immediately hire a good independent private investigator to fully investigate the incident. If you lack the resources to do that, forget about the matter and move on with your life. Do not, under any circumstances, put your faith in the ability of police investigators to investigate their colleagues, for you will be facing years of frustration, anguish and disappointment.

To view the report, go to: http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/police_services/index.htm

Meanwhile, here’s the first few lines of the Vancouver Sun’s February 9 editorial:

Civilian probes would boost confidence in police
Published: Friday, February 09, 2007
The long-awaited report on British Columbia’s police complaints process offers many solid recommendations, but it should have gone a lot further than it did.

A report by former appellate justice Joe Wood, Q.C. is to be released to the public today, according to media accounts.

This writer hopes that the report will finally recommend that civilian investigators, not police, be given the responsibility to investigate cases of serious injury or death involving police officers. That is the model in Ontario, Quebec and Great Britain, for example.

Once the report is released, we will post further commentary here.

This site has had some pretty bleak postings lately, so on a cheerier note, the former Smiths frontman is appearing all weekend in Pasadena, but it’s SRO…

The Attorney General of British Columbia, ably represented by three lawyers at my successful six day civil trial, has filed a Notice of Appeal in the Court of Appeal seeking to have the $5,000 damages award against it set aside. The appeal will be heard in another six months or so and, when all the bills are in, will probably cost BC taxpayers at least another $20,000.

I had repeatedly asked for an apology for my arrest, strip search, jailing and seizure of my car, and would have gladly accepted one just after the incident or even just before the trial, four years later. However, the City of Vancouver and the Attorney General of BC have spent years defending this case vigorously, at what must be horrendous public expense.

Sigh. Sometimes, you just have to wonder….

Click here for a link to a copy of the appeal documents.

Click here for a link to the BC Supreme Court trial decision.

Click here for a link to one of the interlocutory (pretrial) decisions.