Calgary police officers accused of falsifying evidence cleared by ASIRT

Two Calgary police officers accused of using excessive force during an impaired driving arrest, then distorting evidence during trial to cover that up, have been cleared by the provincial watchdog — which found the alleged beating didn't happen.

The finding was the result of an independent witness, who didn't testify during trial, according to the report authored by Alberta Serious Incident Response Teams (ASIRT) executive director Susan Hughson, who found that with no beating, there was no coverup.

ASIRT investigates whenever someone is seriously injured or killed while interacting with police in Alberta.

The arrest happened Feb. 1. 2009 and the trial began in October 2011 before concluding in 2012, where a judge "made specific credibility and factual findings, including that two officers had violently beaten a man during the course of an impaired driving-related arrest and then had given evidence that distorted the truth," the report read.

"Based largely on the findings made by the trial judge in the reported decision, counsel, on behalf of the Criminal Trial Lawyers Association, corresponded with both the Calgary Police Service (CPS) and Calgary Police Commission (CPC) and demanded a criminal investigation into the conduct of the officers."

The report refers to the case as being "unlike most ASIRT investigations undertaken" and that "it has a somewhat unusual and convoluted history that presented unique and significant challenges."

"In this case, notwithstanding the strongly worded findings of the trial judge, ASIRT’s investigation, and indeed, the compelling evidence of a completely independent civilian witness, would seem to establish that the 'beating' that was alleged to have occurred never happened," the report read.

"At trial, having found that a beating occurred, the court found that the officers had a motive to lie or embellish their evidence to cover up the beating. If no beating occurred, any finding of a motive to lie falls with it."

The investigation was important to preserving public confidence in the justice system, it adds.

"Allegations that a police officer may have committed perjury or obstruction of justice, however, go far beyond simply being concerning and strike at the very heart of the administration of justice," it read.

"An officer who would commit these offences has no business being a police officer. A belief that a police officer has deliberately lied under oath impacts that officer’s credibility every time they testify, properly so. That having been said, the impact of an incorrect belief that an officer has committed these acts is both personally and professionally damaging. It is a challenge to that officer’s integrity and professionalism.

"As such, for so many reasons, an independent investigation was required in this case."

Read the full report below: