Protecting the Witnesses

The willingness to protect a gunman by not contacting the police underlines a growing epidemic in our communities where a "code of silence" is allowing gunmen to kill without fear of arrest. One of the reasons for this is witness intimidation which seems to be a current dominant theme in our communities.

A witness in the Jane Creba murder case in Toronto recently claimed that being a snitch was "the worst thing you can do" and he added that his life would be in danger if he was forced to testify. His fears were quite justified. Many years ago in the United States, a witness was ordered by a judge to testify against a gangster against the advice of the prosecutor and shortly after that, the witness was murdered. This fear remains one of the most cited reasons the police give as to why they're having a hard time solving homicides and other crimes.

Toronto police Chief Blair said in December 2007, "We're not advocating people to be snitches; we're advocating people to be witnesses. We're asking people to stand up for themselves and stand up for their communities." The trouble facing these people who witness shootings is that it doesn’t matter whether the witnesses are called snitches or witnesses, they can still be murdered for testifying against gunmen who are defendants in murder trials.

Of course, witnesses can be placed in the Witness Protection Program but this will create an enormous problem not only for the witness but also for his or her family. There is nothing that a family fears more, other than having a family member murdered, is having the family split up because a family member has to move away, possibly thousands of miles from his or her family. It is much easier to simply say nothing and carry on as if nothing happened.

Of course, a witness to a murder can call Crime Stoppers without any fear of his or her call coming back to haunt the caller however, such calls only provide leads to murderers and cannot be used as evidence.

A growing number of people are suggesting that it isn't just intimidation or the "Stop Snitchin'" movement that keeps people from talking but deep mistrust of the police and our justice system, particularly among young black men, who feel overly profiled, frisked and incarcerated. In a lot of these neighbourhoods where the police are trying to get co-operation from the members of these communities, they are unsuccessful because of harassment and distrust brought about by some of the police officers that go into these communities.

The poverty and isolation experienced by groups labeled "at risk" have also created a parallel universe where they feel that they have no need for the police because they can deal with the problems themselves. What this means is that friends and/or associates will hunt down the killers themselves and shoot them. This simply extends the problem on an ongoing basis.

“Snitching” is a term used among the criminals. There's a certain code of rules amongst criminals, just like the “thin blue line” is a term used by the police that is supposed to be followed and if it isn’t followed by any of them, there can be serious consequences to those who don’t follow the “code” .

In its 1991 landmark decision, R. v. Stinchcombe, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled the Crown must provide an accused with complete and prompt disclosure of all the evidence it has against him including the name (but not the address) of any witness who is going to testify against the criminal.

The ruling came years before the widespread use of the Internet, laptop computers and handheld mobile devices allowing rapid transmission of who is telling on whom. In some recent Toronto cases, witnesses have received threats within hours of defence lawyers receiving disclosure on behalf of clients.

It is difficult trying to find a solution to this problem. Society needs witnesses to come forward and testify against criminals otherwise the criminals will go free and commit more crimes.

Over forty years ago, I was asked by the police to find witnesses who were willing to testify against a dangerous criminal who had knifed three men. None of them died but they were in the hospital for quite some time. I found two women who saw one of the knifings and could identify the thug who stabbed the victim and the three victims were willing to testify against the thug who knifed them. There were conditions as to what they wanted in return. They wanted protection. The police contacted the late Donald Graham who was a judge in the criminal court at that time and he told the police that if the witnesses signed their statements, he would order the arrest of the man who knifed the three men and deny him bail. The police asked me to tell the two witnesses and the three victims that if anyone, no matter whom it was, tried to intimidate them into not testifying against the thug, they were to be informed and they would see that the thug would never do it again. One of the women was threatened by a friend of the thug. The police on the case arrested the friend and when they were finished with him, he was told to get out of Toronto. He was never seen again. The thug got ten years in prison and two years after he was released, he was murdered.

I am not suggesting that the police beat those who intimidate witnesses but it seems to me that anyone who intimidates witnesses who are willing to testify in court, should be arrested and held in custody without bail until the trial is over and then brought before a judge charged with threatening and as a condition of the suspended sentence of imprisonment, be ordered to move out of the community and never enter it again. If the thug comes back without first obtaining the permission of a court judge, he or she could then be sentenced to a term of imprisonment and then when he or she is released, still be ordered to stay away from the community. This should also apply to those thugs who are convicted of the original violent crimes also.

Unquestionably, this is a tough way to deal with those criminals who commit serious violent crimes and their friends who intimidate witnesses. It is probably contrary to our Charter of Rights but there is a section in the Charter that allows exceptions that would permit such court orders to be enforced. Obviously an amendment to the Criminal Code would have to be enacted to bring this about.