In his closing argument at the murder trial of Umar Zameer, defence counsel Nader Hasan urged the jury not to compound a tragedy “with an injustice.”
Alas, it was too late for that. Although Zameer was acquitted on Sunday, his trial itself was an injustice, just as surely as the death of Toronto Police Const. Jeffrey Northrup was a tragedy.
The tragedy occurred in early July, 2021, when Northrup and his partner, who were both in plain clothes, ran aside Zameer’s car while investigating a stabbing. Fearing for the safety of his pregnant wife and young son, Zameer reversed the car, hitting Northrup.
The injustice began almost immediately, when then interim police chief James Ramer accused Zameer of “intentionally” striking Northrup in a “deliberate” killing.
Zameer was initially held in custody and missed the birth of his daughter. And when he was released on bail, unscrupulous politicians decided to compound the injustice. Chief among them was Premier Doug Ford, who tweeted “This is beyond comprehension. It’s completely unacceptable that the person charged for this heinous crime is now out on bail.”
As Hasan rightly observed Sunday following the verdict, the public deserved better from elected officials who stoked “the flames of hatred and reactionary tribalism.”
The reactions of police and politicians in the immediate aftermath of Northrup’s death left many with the impression that the veteran cop had been run down by a desperate criminal trying to flee.
Of course, that wasn’t the case at all. From the start, there were concerns about the rigour of the Crown’s case. Upon releasing Zameer on bail, Justice Jill Copeland condemned the prosecution’s theory of the case, saying, “The Crown’s theory … runs contrary to logic and common sense.”
Nonetheless, the Crown decided to proceed with the case, thereby putting an innocent man’s life in jeopardy.
The trial judge — Superior Court Justice Anne Molloy — came to verbal blows with prosecutors more than once, as they twisted themselves in knots to maintain their theory of the case against all evidence. “What motive would this person have to deliberately run down a police officer in front of three other police officers when he has done nothing wrong?” Molloy bluntly asked at one point when the jury was absent.
Perhaps most egregiously, prosecutors — and police witnesses — maintained that Northrup was hit head on, while his arms were raised. Yet the Crown’s own accident reconstructionist concluded that Northrup must have been struck first while Zameer was reversing the car and then hit again when he drove forward.
The prosecutors’ evidence was therefore at war with itself — and with the prosecutors’ theory of the case. Molloy offered them a way out by asking if they were willing to revise their position, but they declined, maintaining instead that their incoherent version of events was correct.
One wonders why the Crown pursued this case in the first place, but one isn’t likely to get a satisfactory answer. After Zameer was acquitted, prosecutors offered only this: “The events surrounding (Northrup’s) tragic death warranted a trial to determine accountability.”
That is not, however, sufficient reason to mount a prosecution. On the contrary, the Ontario Crown Prosecution Manual specifically states that a “charge may only proceed if there is a reasonable prospect of conviction.”
It’s difficult to understand how prosecutors could have thought their case met that standard at the outset, especially given the comments of the bail judge. But even if they did, it must have become obvious as the trial progressed that they stood no reasonable prospect of conviction.
And on that point, the Crown manual states that prosecutors must continue to assess whether their case meets the standard as it progresses, and if it doesn’t, “the prosecutor must withdraw the charge.” By failing to do so, the Crown violated its own principles and furthered the injustice.
The Crown wasn’t alone however. After Zameer was acquitted, Toronto Police Chief Myron Demkiw said he and his officers “were hoping for a different outcome” — a deeply concerning and inappropriate comment from given the insufficiency of the evidence.
Yet despite all this injustice, Zameer was acquitted. That is a testament to the wisdom of the judge and the jury, who ensured justice was done when too many others seemed hellbent on a prosecution. Few who followed the evidence laid out during the trial could disagree with their verdict.
As if to atone for the transgressions of the entire system, Molloy told Zameer, “You have my deepest apologies for what you have been through.”
That’s a good start.
But it can’t stop there. Why did the prosecution push forward with the case in the face of ample evidence as to the absence of Zameer’s guilt and clear judicial concerns. From the start, Zameer was up against powerful political and police forces. Did that influence prosecutorial decisions? A public inquiry is needed to get at answers, an independent judicial examination of what happened here.
As this tragic, unjust debacle demonstrates, the justice system still has much work to do if it is to be worthy of its name.
