Toronto Police chief Myron Demkiw, in Toronto, on April 21.Christopher Katsarov/The Canadian Press
Here are a few normal, boilerplate things that a police chief might say after a man is found not guilty by a jury of his peers.
“We respect the judicial process and accept the decision reached by the jury.”
“We have the utmost confidence in the court and accept the decision based on the evidence presented.”
“We thank all parties involved for their work on this difficult and tragic case.”
No matter what personal connection the police chief might have to the deceased officer, his role first and foremost is to maintain the perception of unbiased policing and respect for the court and the rule of law.
Instead, on Sunday, after a jury found Umar Zameer not guilty of murder in the 2021 death of Toronto Det.-Const. Jeffrey Northrup, Toronto Police Services Chief Myron Demkiw went with a statement that should be disqualifying for someone with his job.
“While we respect the judicial process and appreciate the work of the 12 citizens who sat on a very difficult case,” he said, “I share the feelings of our members who were hoping for a different outcome.”
Was Chief Demkiw crossing his fingers that, despite the evidence presented during the case, Mr. Zameer would be sent to prison anyway? That a man would be wrongfully convicted? That justice wouldn’t be served?
It was never in question that Mr. Zameer was responsible for the death of Det. Const. Northrup on July 2, 2021, in an underground parking garage at Toronto City Hall. The question before the jury, rather, was whether Mr. Zameer intended to hit Det. Const. Northrup with his car that day, and whether he knew that the plain-clothes officer was, in fact, a police officer. If he did, the jury could find him guilty of first-degree murder.
But the Crown’s case was weak – egregiously so – as Ontario Superior Court Justice Jill Copeland acknowledged when she granted Mr. Zameer bail in the fall of 2021. “The Crown’s theory – that Mr. Zameer, who the evidence supports was out for a normal family evening with his pregnant wife and young son, who has no criminal record, who has a good work and education history, suddenly decided to intentionally kill or cause bodily harm that he knew was likely to cause death to a police officer – runs contrary to logic and common sense,” she wrote.
Mr. Zameer had been out celebrating Canada Day with his family when he was approached in a garage around midnight by Det. Const. Northrup and his partner, Sgt. Lisa Forbes, who was a detective constable at the time. The pair were investigating a stabbing but wearing regular clothes, and Mr. Zameer said the two never identified themselves as police officers (which Sgt. Forbes disputed in her testimony). Mr. Zameer testified that they began yelling and banging on his car, and he became afraid he and his family were being robbed. He said he tried to drive away, but his path was blocked by an unmarked police van. So he reversed, swerved, and lurched his car forward, running over Det. Const. Northrup as he tried to exit the garage.
During the trial, Sgt. Forbes, as well as two other officers, testified to witnessing a scene that was essentially disproven by surveillance video, as well as by crash-reconstruction experts for both the prosecution and defence. The experts and surveillance video supported a conclusion that Det. Const. Northrup was knocked down when Mr. Zameer was reversing, and thus was not visible to him when he accelerated and ran him over, and not, as the three officers claimed in court, standing with his hands up in the middle of the garage laneway. What’s more, another TPS officer testified that a group of officers at the scene (excluding Sgt. Forbes) wrote their notes together at the same time, in the same room.
As Ontario Superior Court Justice Anne Molloy remarked (in the absence of the jury) during the trial: “[Sgt. Forbes] has given a version of the events that didn’t happen, and now two other officers have the same version somehow. That’s bizarre.”
As Chief Demkiw left the courtroom after the verdict, he was asked whether he’d address the allegation that his officers colluded in their testimony and lied before the court. “Today’s not the day for that,” he said, as he got into a vehicle. “We will talk later.”
Instead, for Chief Demkiw, the day was apparently reserved for wishing that the jury had rendered a different verdict, and thus for reinforcing the thin blue line, trashing a veil of impartiality, and destroying his credibility as someone tasked to lead Toronto’s police. It’s hard to see how he can be allowed to do that any longer.