R. v. Turpin

Constable Glen Turpin, a veteran police officer, arrested a belligerent drunk in downtown Whitby. When the man resisted Cst. Turpin’s attempt to subdue him and remove his handcuffs at the police station, Cst. Turpin took him to the ground twice. He also used a series of verbal commands to attempt to control the drunk. For this, Cst. Turpin was charged with Assault Causing Bodily Harm and Threatening Bodily harm. At trial, the Crown and defence agreed that Cst. Turpin told the man that if he didn’t “knock it off, [he’d] punch [his] teeth through the back of [his] head.”

Cst. Turpin argued that he had to “ground” the prisoner to protect himself. He said that the threat was a form of tactical communication. The trial judge listened to an audio recording of the incident after the trial and decided that Cst. Turpin had said, “when we’re off camera I’m going to punch your teeth right through the back of your head.” The trial judge rejected Turpin’s testimony without giving him an opportunity to respond to this new interpretation of the audio.

On appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal, Cst. Turpin argued that the trial judge’s finding raised a new allegation against him after the trial was completed. The Court agreed. It said the trial judge violated Cst. Turpin’s right to meet the case against him by not giving him an opportunity to respond to this new interpretation of an important piece of evidence. The Court emphasized that a fair criminal trial is one in which an accused has the right to know the case against him and the right to answer that case. The case establishes a procedure to be followed when a judge interprets an audio or video recording differently than the lawyers who presented the case at trial.

Click here to read the Court of Appeal's decision.

Cst. Turpin was represented by Frank Addario and Andrew Furgiuele.