On Wednesday February 12th, 2003, a verdict was handed down by Judge August in the case of a Young Offender facing an assault police charge laid on June 15th, 2000. The Y.O. was convicted of assaulting Police Officer Charles Stern, notorious for his brutal conduct as a beat cop in 51 Division.

DUPLICATA

On Wednesday February 12th, 2003, a verdict was handed down by Judge August in the case of a Young Offender facing an assault police charge laid on June 15th, 2000. The Y.O. was convicted of assaulting Police Officer Charles Stern, notorious for his brutal conduct as a beat cop in 51 Division.

The defendant's uncompromising testimony and Judge August's reasoning for conviction is what really makes this case stand out. The Y.O. admitted on the stand that she had gone to Queen's Park with a good idea of the possible confrontation that lay ahead, knowing that the police can and do go to extreme lengths to beat back dissent and resistance to the government that writes their cheques. She testified of her willingness to put her body on the line in the fight against vicious Tory policy. The Judge heard about the brutalization that the Y.O. faced at the hands of the police, as well as her resolve and determination to fight back in the face of this. The defendant laid bare many of the actions she took on June 15th, but maintained that she did not assault Officer Stern as the demonstration was breaking up - the allegation made by the prosecution. Witnesses also supported her testimony with their firsthand knowledge of the defendant's actions and whereabouts on that day.

And while the initial allegation laid stemmed from the 'fractured' arm suffered by Stern, this was later ammended to an abrasion. More importantly, the Crown's only evidence was Stern's testimony, which the cop himself admitted could not be confirmed by video footage.

As the Judge read his reasoning for conviction, it was apparent that his decision was based more on his feelings towards the demonstrators as a whole, towards the strength of the protest, towards the insistence of people to fight back, than on the specifics of the Crown's allegations. He dismissed the evidence of the defense and of the witnesses, because they were demonstrators. He claimed that anyone who would engage in violent protest was not credible. The judge did not seem to even consider the very different sides of the same event. After reading out a long list of actions that the demonstrators took on June 15th, Judge August condemned all 'violent'protestors unequivocably - those not wearing blue uniforms.

This trial showed compellingly that when it comes to justice, the courtroom is bankrupt.