There were few times in his report on the Taman Inquiry where former judge Roger Salhany pulled his punches. Many of those who helped to thwart the course of justice in the scandal — a destructive path that began at the accident scene where Crystal Taman died almost immediately after former Winnipeg police officer Derek Harvey-Zenk rear-ended her car at a stop light — came under scathing criticism, and justifiably so. It is also glaringly apparent that the 22 Winnipeg police officers — those who did all the drinking that night in February 2005 when one of their own killed a woman — got off pretty much untouched.
Mr. Salhany concluded that everything about this case was coloured by the fact it was a police officer (at the time) who was the prime suspect. It was why the behaviour of investigators at the accident scene turned the investigation into a train wreck and the case into an outrage of a prosecution. It is why the Winnipeg Police Service, whose professional standards unit will now be replaced by an external independent body for investigations of wrongdoing, was so wanting in its role -- interviewing those 22 officers, giving them every benefit of the doubt and even coaching one officer on why he might not remember how much Harvey-Zenk had to drink at Branigan's restaurant the night of the accident. (See page opposite.) With such self-serving conduct laid bare, Manitoba's provincial government has buckled, finally, to the logic so often repeated that police cannot investigate their own.
It is why former East St. Paul police chief Harry Bakema and fellow officer Ken Graham are now under criminal investigation by the RCMP -- especially Bakema, undeniably the target of Mr. Salhany's most scathing rebukes. The former chief botched the investigation and not out of error, but in "bad faith." He gave false testimony to RCMP upon being investigated initially for obstruction of justice and he repeated his false testimony at the inquiry, Mr. Salhany said. Mr. Graham participated in rank misconduct, fudging his notes along with Mr. Bakema. Justice Minister Dave Chomiak took Mr. Salhany's advice for a review of its training standards one giant step further: he announced under his authority within the Police Act that he had dissolved the East St. Paul force, putting the community under the protection of the RCMP.
The carnage didn't stop with the police investigation, however. Mr. Salhany concluded there was no reason why the independent counsel, Marty Minuk, brought in by the prosecutions branch to handle the case, should have agreed to a plea bargain that spared Harvey-Zenk jail time. With the charge of impaired driving crushed by Mr. Bakema's misconduct, the case of dangerous driving causing death was, in fact, strong, and evidence of his drinking was available, despite Mr. Minuk's protests otherwise to Chief Provincial Court Judge Ray Wyant. Indeed, there was jurisprudence to support jail time, but Mr. Minuk gave too much to Harvey-Zenk's lawyer in agreeing to jointly ask the judge to have Harvey-Zenk serve his time conditionally, in the community. In that, Mr. Salhany reaches this damning conclusion of Mr. Minuk: "In my view, the agreement reached by Minuk with (Richard) Wolson brought the administration of criminal justice into disrepute."
After he discerned, in this sordid affair, who among the many to blame should be singled out, Mr. Salhany recommended the obvious, easiest fixes. And Mr. Chomiak jumped to comply.
What neither could accomplish was pinning down what Winnipeggers felt so keenly was the rot that was central to the scandal -- that Harvey-Zenk, a police officer, could escape a charge of impaired driving causing death because none of his 22 colleagues who drank with him that night -- eight of them later at a house party until 6:30 a.m. -- could "recall" or knew how much he had to drink. One officer said he could not recall whether anyone was drinking at Branigan's. Mr. Salhany chose to make no comment on their conduct, nor their character. He could have commented on their credibility, fully within a judge's prerogative. He chose not to. At a press conference yesterday, Mr. Salhany refused to bend to the repeated requests as to why he did not comment on the wall of silence, the chorus of "do not recall." "A judge can only rely on evidence. A judge cannot speculate," was his unsatisfactory reply.
And, ultimately, unsatisfactory it is. Most, if not all, officers drinking that night are still on the job. The inquiry's reach did not extend to them. Their conduct sullied the reputation of the force, injured the faith Winnipeggers have in their police officers. This fact will be an enduring reminder of why some in the community are quick to suspect the worst when the too-frequent accusations of misconduct or cover-up fly. The existence of an independent investigation body may help to resolve some distrust, but this will be years in the making.
Now it is Chief Ken McCaskill's job to begin that long task of repairing the distrust. He told the inquiry he insisted his officers be forthright and honest in giving their evidence about that night of drinking to the commission. Winnipeggers are hard-pressed to believe they heeded his call. Mr. McCaskill, most of all, needs to reflect on the character and credibility of the handful of officers who have done so much damage to the many who serve.
PREVIOUS
