Français English
Report-back from court proceedings and rally
Click here for a summarized version!
On June 29th and 30th, 2009, the debate around the Montreal Police Brotherhood’s motion to prevent a coroner’s inquest into the death of Mohamed Anas Bennis was finally brought before a Superior Court judge in Montreal. The inquiry, ordered on June 3rd, 2008, by Chief Coroner of Quebec Louise Nolet, would have gotten underway in September of the same year, had the Montreal Police Brotherhood not filed a motion to cancel it in Superior Court on August 20th, 2008. The first court date was set for January 2009, but was rescheduled for February, then June. The next court date was set for September 2009, but it will finally happen in... January 2010!
Although the Brotherhood, the authorities and the media try to paint the Bennis family as guilty of “squandering public funds”, wasting the court’s time and not knowing what they want, the reality is quite different. It is, in fact, the government and the police who are responsible for the delays and expenses, whereas the Bennis family has simply been asking the same thing from the start: WHY?
Three and a half years earlier, on the morning of December 1st, 2005, Anas was killed by two shots fired by Montreal police (SPVM) officer Yannick Bernier. The SPVM claims that Anas attacked Bernier with a kitchen knife for no reason, with one account alleging that Anas was screaming "Allahu Akbar!" (Allah is great). This version was accepted and widely distributed by the media. The Bennis family has always refused to accept these surreal allegations which do not reflect Anas' peaceful nature. They have demanded to be given proof in order to clarify the circumstances surrounding his death, yet the police and the government have done their best to hide the facts from them.
The main protagonists in this tragedy
To defend their insulting motion to hide the truth from us, the Brotherhood (which represents officers Yannick Bernier and Jonathan Roy) is represented by none other than Pierre Dupras, the very same lawyer representing Jean-Loup Lapointe, the police officer who killed Fredy Villanueva in Montreal-North last summer. Dupras also represented the six officers implicated in the death of Michel Berniquez in 2003, also in Montreal-North. One could say that he is an expert in the field of hiding the truth about police killings from the public, as he has already succeeded in banning the media from publishing photos of Lapointe and Pilotte (which had already begun to circulate on the internet) as well as having successfully blocked a coroner’s inquest into the death of Berniquez. An appeal has been made in the Berniquez case and it should be back in the courts soon, another case to follow closely.
The City of Montreal, the City of Quebec, and their respective police forces (SPVM and SPVQ) were represented by Pierre-Yves Boisvert (for Montreal) and Denis Lavallée (for Quebec). In response to a naive citizen's astonishment at seeing the cities’ lawyers sitting on the same side as the Brotherhood’s, Boisvert said coldly: “There are two sides, the right and the left.” Needless to say, they were seated to the right of Judge Claude Champagne...
On the left were Alain Arsenault, representing the Bennis family (who is also involved in the Villanueva public inquiry), and Frédéric Maheux, representing the Quebec Coroner's office. Maheux, who works for the Attorney General of Quebec, was the only government lawyer sitting on the side of the Bennis family.
In the room were Najlaa Bennis, Anas' sister, members and supporters of the Justice for Anas Coalition (who wore t-shirts bearing a portrait of Anas which read “Truth and Justice for Mohamed Anas Bennis, Killed by Montreal Police”), as well as a few journalists.
Who does or doesn't want the SPVM's and prosecutor's confidential reports to be revealed?
The parties began by arguing whether or not two reports should be allowed to be entered into evidence within the framework of the Brotherhood’s motion. The reports in question were that of the SPVQ and that of prosecutor James Rondeau, who decided in November 2006 not to press criminal charges against officers Bernier and Roy, as they had “committed no criminal infraction” by shooting and killing Anas.
Mr. Arsenault’s request that the documents be excluded rested on the fact that it was unclear how the FPPM (Montreal Police Brotherhood) gained access to these documents when the Bennis family had been denied access to the documents by the government on the grounds that they were “confidential”. Lavallée, who had forgotten to wear a tie and who spent two full days in court to only produce the following statement, informed the court that it was the City of Quebec (and the Quebec police) who had made the documents available to the Brotherhood, and that they had no objections to those documents being used to contest the public inquiry into Anas’ death.
Louis Dionne, Director of criminal and penal proceedings (the very same who decided that no charges would be laid against officer Lapointe in the Villanueva case) had responded to the Bennis family’s request in writing, informing them that he didn't authorize any communication of the contents of the report by Rimouski prosecutor Rondeau (a report containing his opinion, and therefore his reasons behind the decision to clear Bernier and Roy of criminal wrongdoing). A certain Mr. Gérard, Deputy Minister of Public Safety, also wrote to the Bennis family, informing them of the confidential nature of the report, that it could not be released without Mr. Dionne’s permission, and that this information had been made clear to all Quebec police forces (SPVQ, SPVM, SQ etc.) as well.
As for the SPVQ’s report, it was the secretary general of the Minister of Public Safety who wrote to the Bennis family to say that they could not release the report on the pretext that the two officers that killed Anas were acting in support of a special Sûreté du Quebec (SQ) anti-terrorism unit operation; that one of the SQ’s suspects was still at large; and that the report contained personal information about car owners, witnesses, religious customs as well as SPVM and Quebec Police Information Centre codes.
So, despite the Ministers of Justice and Public Safety’s refusal of the Bennis family’s request for disclosure of these documents, it would appear that the City of Quebec, with its festivals and its Bonhomme Carnaval, has given itself the power to reveal these documents to the Brotherhood who, in turn, has given itself the power to at last reveal it to the family and, by extension, the greater public! (The absence of these ministers at the hearing said much about the questionable “confidentiality” of the reports, as they seem to have no problem sharing them with the public, if it’s to avoid a public inquiry…)
Arsenault’s legal argument was that in providing the Brotherhood with the reports for the sole purpose of keeping Bernier and Roy from testifying during a coroner’s inquest while having long denied access to the Bennis family and to the general public, the ministers had violated the fundamental right to equal treatment of all before the law. Although his objections were made crystal clear and were fairly easy to understand, the media managed to completely deform them, either deliberately or through incompetence. Anyone listening would have heard Mr. Arsenault state that he was “very happy”, along with the Bennis family, to finally gain access to these reports after almost three years of refusals. He simply objected to the documents being used by the Brotherhood in an attempt to cancel the public inquiry.
The story that came out in most of the media that day, however, was that “the Bennis family no longer wants the reports they once demanded” (1) or even that “the Bennis family tries to block the Brotherhood” (2)… The lawyers for the Brotherhood and the City of Montreal attempted to make the family seem like terrible people lacking scruples who were trying to hide the truth… the pot calling the kettle black!
None of the journalists emphasized the blatant hypocrisy of the city of Montreal who, on one hand, sent a letter signed by the president of the Public Safety Commission Claude Dauphin to Quebec’s Minister of Public Safety Jacques Dupuis, asking him to answer the Bennis family’s questions back in 2007 (only after considerable public and political pressure, of course) yet on the other hand has seated the zealous Mr. Boisvert at the Brotherhood’s side in 2009 to try to keep the family from getting the public inquiry they have been asking for two-and-a-half years. Nor was Mr Lavallée of the City of Quebec criticized for his cowardice for seeming offended when Mr. Arsenault asked if it was him who had made the reports available to the Brotherhood, going as far as sending Arsenault a letter of “warning” (a barely veiled threat), only to admit in court that it was him who did it. Although claiming to have done nothing illegal, even if his actions contradict the orders given by his superiors, he is vague about the details, claiming that the reports travelled all over the place, from the Ministry of Justice to the Ministry of Public Safety via the offices of the both the coroner and the police ethics commission, as though he were trying to make it seem that it may not have been him who did it after all…
Lunch break, time for a little rally for truth and justice
During the afternoon break, the Justice for Anas Coalition had organized a rally in front of the courthouse to denounce the Brotherhood's motion and to once again demand truth and justice for Anas. Najlaa Bennis, Philippe Robert de Massy (from the Ligue des droits et libertés), Alexandre Popovic (from the Coalition against Repression and Police Abuse, CRAP), and François Du Canal (from the Justice for Anas Coalition) spoke at the rally, demanding the public inquest and an end to police brutality and impunity. They also denounced the government policies that mandate one of three police forces in the province of Quebec (ie., Sureté du Québec, Quebec city police force, Montreal city police force) to investigate one another each time someone is killed or seriously injured in a police operation. About a dozen or so people were present (not bad for a rainy Monday) and many others who were at the courthouse for other matters expressed their solidarity with the Bennis family and their supporters in their struggle for truth and against police abuses.(3)
After an hour-and-forty-five minutes of lunch break, the lawyers spoke for another 25 minutes, enough time to allow for both sides to reiterate their points. The judge then declared that he was beginning to lose interest in what they were saying! He then ordered the session to be adjourned until the following morning, when he would have made his decision on the admissibility of the reports…
An illegal and costly waste of time? Speak for yourselves!
The Brotherhood tries to make it seem like the public inquest would be a continuation of the constant inconvenience that officer Bernier has had to endure throughout this case (Bernier being the victim and not Anas, of course). A public inquiry is completely unnecessary, and therefore illegal, a misuse of public funds, and a waste of time, according to the Brotherhood. Looked at with a bit of common sense, however, it becomes evident that: it is the Brotherhood who is more than inconveniencing us all by hiding the truth from us; it is Anas who is the victim, Bernier the perpetrator; the public inquiry is not just important but necessary, and definitely legal; and that it is rather the Brotherhood’s motion that involves a misuse of public funds and a waste of time!
On the morning of June 30th, Judge Champagne ruled in favour of the Brotherhood and denied Arsenault’s motion to exclude the SPVQ report and the prosecutor’s opinions from the file. The documents do, however, remain a secret from the public, as Champagne also declared a publication ban on the documents until the lawyers have had time to decide which parts to censor, or “redact” in legal jargon (personal details, police officers’ names etc.).
The rest of the day ended up being consecrated to the Brotherhood, with the support of the City of Montreal, who argued for the cancellation of the public inquest (Mr. Lavallée just sat quietly, having worn a tie that day). The main arguments against the inquest were that it would be useless and that it was too late for an inquest anyways (an alleged lack of “diligence” to use the term cited from article 133 of the Act respecting the determination of the causes and circumstances of death L.R.Q. , c. R-0.2).
First Mr. Dupras and Mr. Boisvert argued that the Bennis family had already asked “every possible question” and that they had received “every answer they wanted”. The family, however, know that they still have many more questions, otherwise they would not still be demanding the truth three-and-a-half years after Anas’ death. The problem is not how many questions they ask, the problem is that they go unanswered!
The Brotherhood’s other argument was that the case had already been examined by five “public bodies”, therefore rendering a public inquest “useless”. The institutions referred to are the SPVQ, the coroner, a crown prosecutor, the police ethics commission and the judge who was asked to rule on the validity of the Bennis family’s private lawsuit. Let’s examine why none of these bodies satisfied our demands for justice.
The SPVQ is quite evidently not an independent body. When the police investigate the police, it’s always the same story: they protect each other and never seem to find any evidence of wrongdoing. In the province of Quebec, only the SPVM, the SPVQ and the SQ have the power to investigate when police officers kill people. So they take turns scratching each other’s backs, because no police force has a monopoly on killing people, they all do it (for example: Anas was killed by the SPVM, Claudio Castagnetta by the SPVQ, Terry Lalo by the SQ, and so on…). The SPVQ investigators did not question Bernier and Roy, they just read their written reports, but not before leaving them more than enough time to discuss their versions. This would explain why the SPVQ received Bernier’s report no sooner than a month and a half after Anas’ death! Not to mention the fact that the SPVQ’s investigation was carried out in secret and that even if the Brotherhood now wants to make public their report, the voluminous investigation file will not be part of the deal.
The coroner who investigated Anas’ cause of death (a standard procedure in cases of violent and/or suspicious death) relied primarily on the police reports to write his own report, and did not bother to question the fact that the autopsy report showed that the shots were fired into Anas’ body from above, contradicting the police’s self-defence theory.
The crown prosecutor who studied the Bennis case also based his decision on the biased SPVQ report; it is therefore not surprising in the least that he should arrive at similar conclusions, notably the decision not to press charges against officers Bernier and Roy. Rondeau (the prosecutor) refused to give a copy of his decision to the family, opting to read them the ten-page document instead.
As for the Police Ethics Commission, it goes without saying that they have yet to prove their objectivity. The majority of their employees are actually former police officers! It is therefore not surprising, once again, to learn that they accepted the police account of the incident and cleared Bernier and Roy of any wrongdoing. To be able to reach this decision, they had to discard a civilian witness’ testimony who had stated that she saw Bernier standing and shooting at Anas as he lay on the ground, the only witness report that corroborates the autopsy details! And when the commission was forced to review their decision to determine whether Bernier and Roy might have used an “intermediate weapon” instead of a gun, they called in an “expert in the use of force” from none other than the Nicolet Police Institute! Do we even need to say that police instructor Simon Lavoie concluded that, in the circumstances (outlined in the police version), Bernier had no choice but to shoot, and that the only thing officer Roy (who had also unholstered his weapon) could have done differently would have been… to shoot before Bernier!
Last but not least, the judge who presided over the Bennis family’s private suit. In a closed courtroom with the family present, the photos and the famous video allegedly showing Anas attacking Bernier without reason (according to police), but which in fact shows nothing of the kind (there is footage of before and after Anas was shot, but not what actually happened). After this session, the judge backhanded the family’s complaint out of court, ending the proceedings.
Now are we to believe that the Brotherhood, who has been satisfied with the police version (which they surely helped to concoct) from the start, should be allowed to decide when it is that we ought to be satisfied with the explanations of the state funded “public bodies” which have thus far examined this case (always arriving at the same unexplainable knife attack conclusion)? If the Bennis family, along with about thirty community organizations, are still demanding a public inquest, if all the questions that have been asked remain unanswered or that their answers do not satisfy us, does that mean that a public inquest is “useless”? Only a liar could make such a claim.
Mr. Maheux, who represents the office of the Coroner-in-Chief, also refuted the misleading statement, with a ton of legal precedents to support his position. The usefulness of the coroner’s inquest rests on the fact that its purpose is different from that of the other processes that have examined (and spit on) this case. Its mandate is to examine the circumstances surrounding the death (and not to determine whether or not the officers in question are criminally responsible), to inform and reassure the public (which none of the processes have done thus far), and to make recommendations to assure a better protection of human lives. So far the only recommendation that has come out of the investigations has come from the Brotherhood, who dares to state (in the text of its motion to suppress the inquest, in bolded, underlined capital letters) that the only recommendation that could possibly be found is that one must “never attack a police officer, especially with a knife”… This “recommendation” makes it clear that the Brotherhood’s mandate is to protect its members at any cost, and not to protect citizens from potential police abuses. It is also clear that there is a need for the coroner to make real recommendations that seek to keep police from killing more innocent people in the future.
The Brotherhood’s second argument rests on the fact that the Coroner’s order to hold a public inquest was made too long after the fact, 30 months later, which does, in fact fall within the limits of “due diligence” as outlined by article 133 of the Act respecting the determination of the causes and circumstances of death. This act, which seeks, among other things, to establish an outline for the coroner’s role, states that the coroner must act “with diligence”. As Mr. Maheux made clear, there is no mention of what constitutes a “reasonable delay” after which the exercise of a public inquest would be deemed illegal. In other words, not only does the act give the coroner the right to determine whether there is a need for a public inquest, it also gives her the right to determine when to hold it. Mr. Maheux also pointed out that it is not unusual for a case to go on for two, three, even five or six, years, even in Superior Court. Anyone familiar with the legal system knows that it moves at a snail’s pace, and this case is no exception.
The Brotherhood complains that the case has been going on too long, and asks us to consider poor Yannick Bernier, who killed Anas three-and-a half years ago. The Brotherhood, however, has shown no sign of consideration for the family of its victim.
Another issue raised by the Brotherhood is that of public funding. They claim that the inquest would be a squandering of public funds. It does not hesitate to spend its own money (which comes mostly from police salaries, which are in turn paid by public funding) to pay its lawyers to defend killer cops and undertake long and costly legal proceedings, like its motion against a public inquiry!
City of Montreal lawyer Boisvert insinuated on several occasions that “some people” will never be satisfied in this matter, even if there were 10 coroner’s inquests, because the answer they’ve been given is not what they want to hear. He even went so far as to compare the Bennis family to a teenager who doesn’t want to take no for an answer… Shame on him and his colleagues!
All that the family and the community have been asking for from the very beginning is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth… except perhaps justice. We should note that of the 43 people killed by the Montreal Police since 1987, officers have been charged in only 4 of those cases (Griffin, McKinnon, Barnabé and Lizotte), and that in two of the four cases, the officers implicated were later acquitted.
It goes without saying that when we are fed lies, contempt and injustice, there is no way we will be satisfied! We will continue to stand and fight night and day for truth and justice with the Bennis family and with all families of victims of police killings, in Anas’ peaceful image. And we will NEVER be satisfied until our basic demands have been met. The Bennis family has always respected legal procedure and has always called on the community to fight peacefully for truth and justice. If the coroner’s inquest is halted before it has even begun, it will greatly discredit the justice system in the eyes of the public.
As Najlaa said to journalists during the trial: “This has been dragging on for almost four years now. They bide their time, using our exhaustion against us. From the beginning, we have done everything right. We have done everything to ensure that calm is maintained in the community, and called for peace in my brother's name. But this calm did not serve us well. Today, we are being laughed at.”
If the government had not waited so long to call for a public inquest, we might not be at this point. Perhaps a recommendation would have been made and applied by the government to stop police brutality and the Montreal Police would not have killed five more people in the meantime. The Brotherhood's motion is just lengthening the process and making it clear that they have something to hide.
The case will most likely be in the courts again in January 2010, when Mr. Arsenault will argue the Bennis family's case against the Brotherhood's infamous motion to cancel the public inquest.
The struggle continues, now more than ever...
Sources:
- The presence of Coalition members and allies in court on June 29th and 30th, 2009
- The COBP's documentation of the Anas Bennis case (available at www.CMAQ.net)
- The Justice for Anas Coalition
- « La famille Bennis ne veut plus des rapports tant réclamés », Christiane Desjardins, La Presse, 29 juin 2009,
- « Bennis family trying to block police brotherhood », Shuyee Lee, CJAD, 29 juin 2009,
- « Allocution de la CRAP au rally Justice pour Anas »,