In a nearly fruitless effort to cut overtime pay to cops, the city’s legal department is fighting a mostly behind-the-scenes battle with the province’s judges, urging the courts to change the way hearings are scheduled.
At issue is the requirement that police officers be available to testify at court, as witnesses in cases involving people charged with crimes or violations. The arresting officer has to clear his or her schedule for the hearing date, and be available to testify, if necessary. For this, the officer receives a per diem overtime payment. These hearings are typically at night court.
The city wants to reduce these payments by consolidating the hearings. That is, if a cop is to testify in, say, five cases before the courts, the city wants all five of those hearings held on the same night, so that the cop only receives one per diem payment. The judges, however, object to that recommendation, and want the cop to testify on five different nights.
Night court adjudicator Gus McIntyre did not return a call or an email for comment, but deputy police chief Bill Moore tells The Coast that McIntyre’s concern is the perception of fairness. As Moore explains it, a defendant may be sitting in a courtroom, watching the same police officer testify three or four times in a row, with all guilty verdicts, and so the defendant thinks it’s useless to put up a defence.
Paperwork presented to the Board of Police Commissioners this week reveals a fascinating lobbying effort by city lawyers. “Pamela Williams has recently been appointed Chief Judge of the Provincial Court, “ writes city lawyer Josh Judah. “I am currently attempting to set up meeting with her. want to discuss Evidence Certificates, but also plan to take the opportunity to generally discuss court efficiency with her. I do not, however, want to specifically raise the issue of multiple trials with the same officer at this time.
“If I were to raise the issue,” continues Judah, “I think the first thing Judge Williams would do is communicate with her Adjudicators [i.e., the other judges]. When asked the question, even those who are not currently concerned about the practice will likely say they would prefer not to see the same officer too often. Others say they feel the process appears “tainted” and the scheduling should be altered. My guess is that once the issue is formally raised, the Adjudicators get on the same page and Judge
Williams may direct Court Administration to stop scheduling Officers for multiple trials on the same evening. We would then be position to lobby for change, but would be at their mercy.”
In short, Judah appears to say that the judges so distrust the city’s lawyers that if the lawyers ask for a change, the judges will do the exact opposite. This, needless to say, is a remarkable statement to put in a public document.
This article appears in Jun 6-12, 2013.
Isn’t Judah saying that if he actually asks Williams, she’ll ask the adjudicators and their first instinct will be to say don’t schedule the same cop on the same night for multiple trials because of the perception of tainting the process? If he triggers that formal response, the court could take a position and then HRM will then be fighting a scheduling change which will be really hard to reverse and that it would be much better for the city to just stay quiet. Not sure I see the “distrusting the city and doing the exact opposite” part here. It seems to me that Judah is simply reading the bureaucratic politics and being, strangely, candid about it. A candid response that he no doubt regrets now that it’s in the Coast! In any event, an interesting little document on the inner political workings of HRM’s legal department, the courts and the provincial department of justice.
spaustin has it exactly right, seems to me, and the conclusion drawn by Bosquet is ridiculous. The City solicitors and the police seem to be agreed on this, and this is just a caution against doing something that would make their current position even more difficult. Joshua Judah has a well-deserved A-1 reputation in Halifax for being an ethical lawyer, and Tim Bosquet owes him an apology.
Judah will say what his employer wants him to say; as for ‘ethical’ – excuse me whilst I smirk. He will willingly argue that ‘black’ is ‘white’ and do so with a straight face.
I think I hear Kyle Shaw calling up HIS lawyer right now: “Hi, yeah, could you do up one of those standard “We apologize for this Tim Bousquet article” letters for us? Oh, and does this qualify us for that quantity discount on those that we talked about?”