80 days of silence

December 15, 1991
by Spectrum Staff Reporter

Vincent Gardner has been buried. But the matter of his death is not yet laid to rest.

The 49 year old Ottawa resident who was incapacitated when he was shot by Nepean constable John Monette shortly after 6 o'clock on September 26, died in the Intensive Care Unit of the Ottawa Civic Hospital on November 16. [This was actually the night of the benefit held in his honour. It turned out to be the beginning of his wake - Ed]. Some 80 days later, nobody has been arrested for this shooting and the residents of Ottawa don't even know when the big-city investigators from Toronto will find a few spare moments to get back to this irritating little matter.

What has happened since Mr. Gardner died? Here is an account.

The Special Investigative Unit (SIU) which is supposed to comprise mainly non-police in order to satisfy the requirement of not having police investigate police, were given first bash at the investigation. This had the immediate effect of stalling any investigation by the Civilian Complaints Commissioner who has wider investigative powers than the SIU.

The first thing the SIU did in Ottawa was to ask the Ottawa police to send their police photographers to take pictures as part of the investigation...

The next thing was to keep a low profile. Not a peep was heard from the SIU until after Gardner died. At that point the SIU issued a press release that has added fuel to the flames of cynicism, suspicion and anger in Ottawa.

In what is still the only press release isssued on this matter, the SIU first quoted an autopsy report as to the fact and cause of Mr. Gardner's death and then in the final sentence produced an opinion as to what did not cause death. This act has left some people smelling bias and they wonder if the SIU should not be called on to disqualify itself from continuing the investigation.

Constable Monette, in the meantime, has been left to go about his normal duties; the Nepean police have not thought it necessary to suspend him until the matter is cleared up.

Members of Nepean's Black community held a meeting with Nepean Mayor Ben Franklin, Nepean Police Chief Wayne Phillips, Alderman Al Loney and another Nepean policeman to discuss racism and policing as they affect Black people.

And the National Council of Jamaicans and Supportive Organizations in Canada, observing the unrest in the community, called a meeting of organizations and individuals to see what could be done. The first product of that consultation was "The March Against Injustice" which was set for Saturday last (while we were at press). The meeting also identified a letter-writing campaign as an effective tool to keep the authorities from burying the issue.

Colville Brown, the man at whose 22 Gould Street home Mr. Gardner was shot duirng a singularly unsuccessful police raid for drugs, has lodged several complaints with the Civilian Complaints Commissioner.

The City of Ottawa's Advisory Committee on Visible Minorities has written several letters to the Ontario Solicitor General seeking swift action in the matter. The Committee has also lodged a complaint with the Civilian Complaints Commissioner in which it asks him to make enquiries as to whether Constable Monette has a history of race-related incidents.

Finally, the National Council decided to organize a "Black Ribbon Campaign" to highlight the injustice and/or radcism that has left some 15 unarmed Black people shot by police in Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa, to the accompaniment of unconscionable delays in arresting and charging the gunmen, as well as a parade of lesser charges and dismissals when charges are eventually laid.

In the meantime, funds are being collected for the Gardner legal fund at West Indian meat and grocery outlets, at the office of attorney Lawrence Greenspon, and on special occasions at the Caribbean Delight Restaurant.

It is expected that there will be criminal charges laid and a criminal case tried. It is also expected that civil suits will be filed by the Gardner family. In the meantime, the brakes which were applied to an investigation by the Civilian Complaints Commissioner are being released and another investigation is starting.

A series of 7 articles....
 
#1 - March 15, 1993

Somewhat of a rehearsal studio...

Not a Drug Store

Vincent Gardner who died in the Ottawa Civic Hopsital in November 1991 was shot in the liver when police broke into a home at 22 Gould Street on September 26, 1991, to begin what has been called a drug raid. In a case involving the only person to be charged as a result of that raid, a judge freed Guntley Lewis in a trial that ended in September 1992. Lewis has been charged with possession of less than one gram of marijuana. Her Honour Judge Diane Nicholas said there were three matters before her: (1) the validity of the search warrant used in the raid, (2) the reasonableness of the search of the premises, and (3) the strip search of all the occupants of the house that night. In a judgement given orally on November 13, 1992 and in writing in February 1993, the judge ruled as follows:(1) Mr. Lewis, not being a proprietor of the house, cannot challenge (is not the right person to challenge ) the validity of the search warrant, but any evidence obtained as a result of the warrant should be excluded; (2) the search was not reasonable - and was in serious violation of the Charter of Rights (section 8 and (3) the strip search was in flagrant violation of the charter.

The Editor

THE COURT: Guntley Lewis charged that he did, on or about the 26th day of September, 1991, in the City of Ottawa, unlawfully have in his possession a narcotic, to wit, cannabis marijuana, and thus did commit an offence under S.3(2) of the Narcotic Control Act.

At the outset of the trial I was advised that the defense had filed an application pursuant to S. 24 (2) of the Charter to exclude evidence, and the application centered around S. 8 of the Charter and an allegation of unreasonable search.

The search warrant in this case which was issued on the 26th of September, 1991, to be executed between 3:50 pm and midnight on that same day, was in order to seize cannabis marijuana at 22 Gould Street in the City of Ottawa. The search warrant was obtained by Detective Donald Munro of the Ottawa Police who had been involved in an undercover operation with respect to the above-mentioned premises.

A total of approximately 12 officers, I believe, were involved in the execution of the search warrant, and access to the premises was gained by means of a ram used to break down the door.

The execution of this search warrant has achieved a high level of notoriety because one of the occupants of the house Vincent Gardner, was shot by a police officer who now faces criminal charges. That matter has not yet been resolved and to the extent possible, I will make no comment with respect to the part of the search as the conduct of that officer and the shooting bear no relevance to the case before the Court. It may, however, partially explain why a case which involved such a minute amount of marijuana, has resulted in several days of trial and up to two days of legal argument.

As indicated above, the issues to be determined by me are the validity of the search warrant, the reasonableness of the search of the premises, and the strip search of all of the occupants of the house following the execution of the search warrant.

The evidence before me with respect to the surveillance and the obtaining of the search warrant is as follows: Detective Munro and Detective David Lockhart were assigned to investigate 22 Gould Street, in the City of Ottawa, on the 18th of September, 1991, as a result of a variety of complaints from the public. The evidence is that the police had received information that there were drugs for sale at that address and that neighbours had also complained about noise and fights taking place on the front lawn of the property. It appears from a review of all the evidence that, although the police were called on one occasion as a result of a fight on the lawn, no charges were laid. In addition, a local police officer, who was a resident of that neighbourhood, had supplied Detective Munro with the names of some of the persons who were frequently attending that address, as well as licence plate numbers. Some of those persons had criminal records; others were charged with drug related offences; and several had histories of prior contacts with police. These concerns of Constable Robonzy, as I read the evidence, were not pursued or investigated separately at that time, in the sense that there were no prior attempts to obtain a search warrant for the premises until September of 1991.

The first piece of information received and testified to by Detective Munro, with respect to the obtaining of the search warrant, was evidence of a complaint from the Neighbourhood Watch Co-ordinator indicating the possibility that drugs were being sold from 22 Gould Street in the City of Ottawa. Quoting from that document, I read:

"Rastafarians lived at this address and that approximately 40 people per day visit this residence at all hours."

Surveillance was subsequently conducted on the house and, as I've indicated earlier, a number of licence plate numbers were obtained and checked. Some of the owners of these plates were known to the police, either by being suspects with respect to other warrants, having previously been charged, and a few having drug related convictions. This information had originally been obtained by Detective Heagle and turned over to Detective Munro when he assumed the investigation in September of 1991.

Detective Munro's evidence was also that, earlier in July while he was on vacation, one of his sources had advised him that he had purchased about $75 worth of drugs from a person named "Owen", at 22 Gould. Hoever, that information was stale by the time it was received by Detective Munro and no search warrant was obtained.

On September 17, 1991, Detective Brian Bell received a complaint from the Neighbourhood Watch representative concerning possible drug trafficking at 22 Gould. These suspicions were based on the volume of traffic coming and going and on the observations of several people in the area. As a result, Detective Munro was assigned to do surveillance of the house, commencing on the 19th of September, for approximately a one hour period.

As I've indicated before, police observed license plate numbers and the fact that several persons arrrived and left the premises. At that time, the police were not aware that, in fact, a reggae band played out of this house; and Detective Munro conceded that this information only came to his attention after the execution of the search warrant. In fact, he testified that when police entered the house, the house was cluttered with guitars, instruments, microphones and was described by Detective Munro as "somewhat of a rehearsal studio."

Further, complaints about the noise coming from the house had been fielded by Staff Sergeant Hayes at a community meeting, held on September 24th, as a result of pressure being exerted by community members. This meeting took place two days before the execution of the search warrant.

#2 - April 15, 1993

I am a friend of Dread

During the surveillance conducted on the 20th of September, Detective Munro had observed a Black male known to the police as Andrew Clark, exit the house and eventually walk to Richmond Road where that person used several telephone booths. Also on the 20th of September, an informant of Officer Lockhart's had been sent in, in an attempt to make a buy. The evidence is: "The source went and knocked on the door, atttempted to make a purchase, and the occupant said, 'I don't know you'. And that was the extent of it." This failed attempt to purchase narcotics was not disclosed in the Information to Obtain a Search Warrant document. Further surveillance was conducted on September 24th, while, at the same time, Staff Sergeant Hayes met with the members of the community at a meeting held to discuss the residents and problems at 22 Gould Street. It appears that none of the occupants of 22 Gould Street were either advised of the meeting or invited to attend.

The last attempt at purchasing narcotics from that residence via an informant occurred on September 25th; an informant of Detective Desjourdy's was used. When he knocked on the door, a male answered the door, being the same person earlier recognized by the police. A discussion occurred outside for approximately 15 to 20 seconds and then the informant was invited inside the house. A few minutes later the informant exited and no purchase took place.

There is a divergence, in my view, between the evidence of the officers with respect to this attempted buy, and the information conveyed to the Justice of the Peace in the Inforamtion to Obtain the Search Warrant. Detective Desjourdy's evidence is that, following the attempt, his source revealed to him that when he approached the door he asked, "Is Owen there?" The person who answered the door replied, "Yes." The source then asked, "Do you have some weed?" And the person at the door said, "Yeah." The person then left and came back with another person referred to as 'Owen', at which point Owen and the informant have a conversation with Owen asking, "Who are you?" And the informant responding, "I'm a friend of Dread." Owen then replies, "Which Dread?" And the informant replies, "From 170 Lees." At which point Owen says, "No, no, no," and pushes the informant out of the place. No drugs were seen in the house.

Detective Desjourdy subsequently reported to Detective Munro on this conversation with his informant on the subsequent day, being the morning of the 26th of September.

During his evidence, Detective Munro testified that his impression, after being informed by Detective Desjourdy, was that a transaction was about to occur between the informant and Andrew Clark, who had opened the door, but that Owen had stepped in and said that no deal would occur. The information to Obtain the Search Warrant describes the above mentioned conversation as follows:

On the 26th of September Detective Desjourdy of the RCMP advised me that a source of his had attended the address of 22 Gould within the last 24 hours, and that while there had requested to purchase drugs from the male previously identified as Andrew Clark. At this time, Clark informed the source that he was in possession of cannabis and that he would indeed sell some to the source. The transaction between Clark and the source was interrupted by the male previously mentioned as 'Owen' at which time the source was questioned as to their knowledge that drugs for sale at this address and subsequently Owen refused to allow the transaction to proceed."

Detective Munro's evidence was that he did not take notes of the information conveyed to him by Detective Desjourdy with respect to the attempted purchase on the 25th. This is regrettable, as I conclude that the summary of the conversation between the informant and the occupant of 22 Gould Street, as described in the Information to Obtain a Warrant, differs in some material ways from the testimony of Detective Desjourdy, particularly when it refers to an express agreement by Andrew Clark to sell drugs. This is significant, in my view, because Justice of the Peace Bartraw, when informed that no drugs had been seen in the house on the night in question, asked Detective Munro how far the transaction had gotten prior to being interrupted. Clearly, Justice of the Peace Bartraw was of the view that there had been an express agreement to purchase drugs between the informant and Clark which was subsequently interrupted by Owen. The evidence is not clear on that point in my view. The cross examination of Detective Desjourdy does not lead me to that same conclusion.

Next Installment:

Misleading Information

Send your comments and stories of police brutality to: ruitsdawtah@Hotmail.com