GIST: "Prosecutors have dropped drug and gun charges against two people after a Hamilton police officer admitted to lying in his testimony about information from a confidential informant.
“So you’re saying you lied under oath, is that right?” asked defence lawyer Leora Shemesh, according to a transcript of the Feb. 8 trial.
“Correct,” replied Det. Const. Hajanthan Ratnam, a drug officer with Hamilton police.
“OK. So you lied yesterday and you lied today?” Shemesh asks again.
“Yes,” he said.
The stunning admission led the provincial Crown to promptly withdraw gun charges and the federal Crown to stay drug charges against Ryley Donnelly-Lavelle and Chloe Watson. Two days later, further charges related to an alleged bail breach by Donnelly-Lavalle were also stayed, according to records obtained by The Spectator.
But the full fallout from what happened remains to be seen. The officer now faces a potential investigation and lawyers are calling for a review of other cases connected with the detective. It’s unclear how many cases the officer is involved in, but lawyers say he’s an active drug officer in the area and this has the potential to affect many cases.
According to a transcript of the hearing, Ratnam appears to have mistakenly believed he was permitted to lie to protect confidential information. He shaped his answers to fit an outdated, redacted version of the information to obtain, which is a sworn document that is used by the court to approve a warrant.
It is a criminal offence to lie in court and police officers are not immune to perjury charges.
The Crown attorney’s office says it has notified Hamilton police.
The Crown office has also referred the matter to the regional director of Crown operations to assess whether it should go to police for a criminal investigation, said Hamilton police spokesperson Jackie Penman.
The police service is awaiting the outcome of that review, she said. Once that’s complete, police will review the matter under the Police Services Act — the legislation that governs police disciplinary charges in Ontario — and police will determine if charges should be laid.
According to the audio recording of the Feb. 8 hearing, after the charges were withdrawn and stayed, the presiding judge, Justice Marjoh Agro, remarked that both prosecutors acted properly.
“I trust there will be lessons learned from this experience as far as the affiant is concerned and indeed the training provided to Hamilton police officers, not only in preparation of the warrant but also in self-preparation for testimony,” she said.
Hamilton police declined to comment on training.
Through police Ratnam was made aware of this Spectator article. He was unable to comment. Under the Police Services Act police are restricted from commenting about their work, without permission, and can face disciplinary charges for doing so.
Shemesh, Donnelly-Lavalle’s lawyer, said it appeared the officer believed he’s entitled to lie if he thinks he’s protecting a source.
“The problem is ... a complete lack of education,” she said in an interview with The Spectator.
The bigger question, she asked, is what else has he lied about? The lack of honesty calls into question other cases he’s involved with, particularly ones where he swore to the truth of a warrant.
“I think there has to be a review,” she said, adding that a letter from the federal Crown’s office ought to go out to every defence lawyer representing clients in cases he’s involved with advising them of what’s happened.
Watson’s lawyer, Jaime Stephenson, agreed other lawyers should be told. Federal prosecutors have notified lawyers before in similar cases.
“At the end of the day you take an oath to tell the truth,” she said.
She is concerned about the officer’s training and understanding of what it means to take an oath.
“I just don’t understand what excuse there is for that,” she said.
Both experienced defence attorneys noted that in other cases involving informants, it’s typical for officers to tell the court that they can’t answer a question without risking identifying an informant. Prosecutors will typically help police navigate the sometimes tricky exercise by objecting to questions that could risk identifying a confidential informant.
The case in question began in 2020 when police searched two properties, a townhouse on Willings Lane near Garner Road in Ancaster and a house on Medici Lane on the west Mountain. Police seized cocaine and guns and arrested the young pair, who were a couple at the time.
Stephenson maintains Watson was never a target of the police investigation and was caught up in the case because she was at the home.
Shemesh says search warrants were based off of old information, including intelligence about her client’s dad.
The case involved multiple informants, whose identities are shielded. It’s common in this type of case for documents to be redacted to protect identities.
In addition to the lie admission, there were concerns about other errors in the search warrant documents that the officer admitted to in his testimony. This included saying there was information that drugs were “throughout” the house when that wasn’t the information provided by a source, or misrepresenting his opinion that drugs were being divided up at an address as fact.
These “errors” were a focus at the trial before the officer admitted to lying.
According to the Feb. 8 transcript, Ratnam was being questioned about information from a “Source B.”
He said this source never told police there were drugs in the home on Medici.
But on cross-examination Shemesh points to a line in the information to obtain document that says: “B says the drugs are stored at the house.” She questions whether that was an error.
This is when things got confusing.
“That paragraph says, ‘The drugs are stored at the house.’ That is an error, correct?” Shemesh says.
“OK, so my version, I — I don’t see that; it’s vetted out,” Ratnam replies.
Ratnam had been looking at an older version of the document that had been redacted. In the newer version, an unredacted line included source B saying there were drugs in the house.
Once shown the latest version of the document, Ratnam readily admitted the error.
“I thought we weren’t talking about what was outside of what was vetted,” he explains.
Later on he answers: “I’m just looking at the document in front of me. I just forgot about it.”
In the days since, the defence attorneys have been getting calls from other lawyers who have cases involving the same officer.
Stephenson said she searched through her cases and found several others tied to the officer and is likely to raise the issue in court. She’s even had clients who heard about what happened call to ask if it affects their case.
No notice has yet been sent out to lawyers, but both Stephenson and Shemesh say that should happen.
“You have to be transparent in regards to an officer caught lying,” Shemesh said. “It makes you wonder how many warrants he’s signed.”
The entire story can be read at:
https://www.thespec.com/news/crime/2022/02/17/hamilton-police-officer-perjury-hajanthan-ratnam.html
