‘It’s ridiculous’: Windsor judge critical of OPP and SIU during closing arguments in manslaughter trial

The closing arguments were heard in court on Friday in a manslaughter trial of the death of a 24-year-old. CTV Windsor’s Michelle Maluske has more.

Closing arguments were heard Friday in court in a manslaughter trial of a Chatham-Kent OPP officer. The Windsor judge was critical of the OPP and SIU during the arguments.

Const. Sean O’Rourke pleaded not guilty to one count of manslaughter for shooting Nicholas Grieves, 24, on July 7, 2021.

O’Rourke was responding to a theft of gas and when he tried to pull Grieves over, the situation “changed drastically”, according to the officer.

The judge agreed.

“This situation changes with the alleged ramming and the alleged contact between the two vehicles. It’s a key to what happens. Where’s the accident reconstruction?” Justice Bruce Thomas said Friday.

“OPP denies accident reconstruction. SIU denies accident reconstruction to what becomes the fundamental part of what happens here, and I find that unfortunate.”

The Special Investigations Unit (SIU) takes over incidents where police officers in Ontario are involved in an incident that leads to serious injury or death of a civilian.

At trial, court learned the front of O’Rourke’s cruiser and the rear of Grieves’ car were both damaged.

O’Rourke testified Grieves “rammed” into his cruiser after the emergency lights went on, causing the sedan to spin out of control towards the ditch.

However, the officer made no mention of the alleged ramming in his notes after the shooting, nor did he tell a use of force expert hired by the defence.

The contact between vehicles was only presented at trial by O’Rourke himself.

Justice Thomas said Friday he was frustrated a detailed investigation was never done on the damage to both vehicles, the markings on the highway, nor how the vehicle came to a rest in the center median.

“We have a civilian shot to death in the median by a police officer in a situation where SIU is called and ultimately charged, and we have no accident reconstruction. It’s ridiculous,” the judge said.

Assistant Crown Attorney Jason Nichol was also critical of O’Rourke’s failure to mention the collision in his notes, written within hours of the shooting.

“That is significant evidence to discount the story about intentional ramming,” Nichol said.

“Could there have been incidental contact? Yes, there could have been.”

Nichol argued a serious collision would have been “obvious” to O’Rourke and would have understandably made it into his notes or into his interview with the expert.

“He’s translated one event – that being the incidental contact – into an intentional, violent ramming in an attempt to elevate the risk,” Nichol argued.

Defence lawyer Sandy Kehara argued it wasn’t just the contact between the two vehicles that elevated O’Rourke’s risk.

As the sedan spun out of control down into the median, O’Rourke said the driver continued to try to drive out of the ditch.

And, when the driver and passengers didn’t put their hands up as directed by the officer, his risk was greater.

“Sitting in there, if there was a gun, he’s (O’Rourke) a sitting duck. He can’t see. What if they start shooting from the vehicle?” Kehara argued.

“I know these are all hypotheticals and unknowns and thinking worst case scenarios, but to stay alive on the street, you gotta think worst case scenarios.”

Court learned no weapons were found in the car and it had not been stolen.

Synopsis of the shooting

During the two-week trial, court learned O’Rourke drew his Glock nine-millimetre handgun and pointed it towards Grieves.

The officer told the court, he “stumbled” while walking down the median towards the car when he fell into the front seat and the gun accidentally went off.

The officer has no recollection of the shooting itself.

Nichol said stumbling is a “fabrication” the officer has presented to explain his actions.

The crown is critical of O’Rourke for not only pulling out his firearm but pointing it at the driver.

Rather, the prosecution believes even if O’Rourke needed his firearm, he could have kept it pointed towards the ground while he assessed the alleged risk posed by Grieves and his two passengers.

The defence is arguing the gun could have been bumped in O’Rourke’s struggle to get his upper body out of the front seat of the car.

And, the judge conceded in many cases, accused people don’t have specific memory about portions of, or all, of their actions in a serious traumatic incident.

Justice Thomas told the court he needs some time to consider his judgment and will return with his decision on June 24.