Saturday, March 12, 2022

Det. Const. Hajanthan Ratnam: Hamilton, Ontario: Confidential informants; Bulletin: The Hamilton police officer who admitted to lying in court is now facing a criminal investigation by an outside police agency, the Hamilton Spectator, (Reporter Nicole Reilly) reports... "Provincial and federal prosecutors also continue to review more than 30 cases involving Det. Const. Hajanthan Ratnam, including several that have seen charges stayed in court recently. The Spectator reported exclusively about the case last month, in which the drug unit detective admitted in testimony to lying about information from an informant regarding drugs being at an address police searched."... Officers are not permitted to lie in court, even to protect confidential information. Typically when asked a question that could risk identifying an informant or confidential information, an officer will ask for guidance and explain any concerns. Police are not immune to perjury charges."


PUBLISHER'S NOTE: What do 'confidential' police informants have to do with forensic science? (I'm glad you asked). Investigative  Reporter Pamela Colloff give us  a clue when she writes - at the link below -  "I’ve wanted to write about jailhouse informants for a long time because they often appear in troubled cases in which the other evidence is weak." That's my experience as  will as a criminal lawyer and an observer of criminal justice. Given the reality that jurors - thanks to the CSI effect - are becoming more and more insistent on the need for there to be forensic evidence, it is becoming more and more common for police to rely on shady tactics such as use of police snitches, staging lineups, coercing, inducing, or creating false confessions out of thin air, procuring false eyewitness testimony or concealing exculpatory evidence. 
Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


STORY: "Hamilton detective who admitted lying in court now facing criminal investigation," by Reporter Nicole O'Reilly, published by The Hamilton Spectator, on March 12, 2022.


SUB-HEADING: "As prosecutors review officer's other cases, some charges are being dropped in court."


GIST: "A Hamilton police officer who admitted to lying in court is facing a criminal investigation by an outside police agency.


Provincial and federal prosecutors also continue to review more than 30 cases involving Det. Const. Hajanthan Ratnam, including several that have seen charges stayed in court recently.

The Spectator reported exclusively about the case last month, in which the drug unit detective admitted in testimony to lying about information from an informant regarding drugs being at an address police searched.


According to the transcript and audio recording from that Feb. 8 hearing, he repeatedly admitted to lying when questioned by defence lawyer Leora Shemesh.

“So you’re saying you lied under oath, is that right?” she asked.


“Correct,” Ratnam replied.


He told the court he was basing his answers off a search warrant document in front of him, not knowing it was an outdated version and that the information in question was no longer redacted.


“I’m just looking at the document in front of me. I just forgot about it,” the officer said in court, explaining why he lied.


Officers are not permitted to lie in court, even to protect confidential information. Typically when asked a question that could risk identifying an informant or confidential information, an officer will ask for guidance and explain any concerns. Police are not immune to perjury charges.


In response to the admitted lie, the Crown’s office immediately withdrew gun charges and the federal Crown stayed drug charges against the pair on trial.


Hamilton police were notified and there was a review as to whether a criminal investigation was warranted. Now police spokesperson Jackie Penman confirms a criminal investigation is ongoing.


“There is currently a criminal investigation underway by an external police agency,” she said, adding that once that’s complete, the professional standards branch, which investigates whether officers violated the Police Services Act, will review the case.


Police declined to identify the outside police service conducting the investigation. Ratnam is not suspended.


Meanwhile police are working with the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC) and the Hamilton Crown Attorney’s Office to identify cases that may be affected, Penman said.


A spokesperson for PPSC, which oversees federal Crowns who prosecute drug cases, said it’s aware of the developments involving Ratnam, and is working with police and the provincial Attorney General.


All cases involving Ratnam will be reviewed, said spokesperson Sabrina Nemis. “To date the PPSC has identified more 30 cases for review, but the process is ongoing.”


Ratnam’s role in some cases has been a factor in some matters being withdrawn or stayed, she said. She did not specify how many.


The Spectator is aware of at least two cases this week in Hamilton where the federal Crown has stayed drug charges tied to the detective.


It’s unclear how many cases may be affected."


The entire story can be read at:

https://www.thespec.com/news/crime/2022/03/12/hamilton-police-officer-perjury-hajanthan-ratnam.html?rf

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic"  section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;




SEE BREAKDOWN OF  SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG,  AT THE LINK BELOW:  HL:




FINAL WORD:  (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases):  "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;

—————————————————————————————————

FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions.   They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;