Prosecutor tells inquiry Dunlop questioning was done fairly

[Note an error in article. The judge at Leduc trial #2 was Terrence A. PLATANA, not Plantana. It is not an uncommon error. I have made it myself . ]

Cornwall Standard Freeholder

24 January 2009

Posted By Trevor Pritchard

Former city police officer Perry Dunlop was not treated unfairly during the 2004 sex abuse trial of lawyer Jacques Leduc, the case’s prosecutor told the Cornwall Public Inquiry Friday.

Lidia Narozniak said she had seen “much more aggressive” questioning of investigating officers during her 26 years as a Crown attorney than what Dunlop endured during his four days of testimony.

“Investigating officers these days are now grilled on the stand for days,” said Narozniak, who completed her second and final day of testimony yesterday.

“I have seen officers grilled about how they investigated, about tunnel vision. Some have even been accused of lying on the stand, of forgery, of fabricating evidence.”

In 2004, Narozniak, then an assistant Crown attorney in the Hamilton area, was assigned to prosecute the case against Leduc.

Leduc was one of 15 men charged with sex crimes during Project Truth, the Ontario Provincial Police’s four-year investigation into allegations a ring of pedophiles had preyed on children in the Cornwall area.

Three years earlier, Leduc’s charges had been stayed after it unexpectedly came out during his trial that the mother of one of his alleged victims – known at the inquiry as C-16 – had spoken twice with Dunlop about her son’s story.

Dunlop, by that time, had become well-known in the community for his off-hours investigations into sexual abuse allegations.

The ruling was successfully appealed, and in 2004, Narozniak called Dunlop as a witness at Leduc’s pre-trial hearing. While she only questioned him for half a day, Dunlop’s cross-examination was considerably longer, and Leduc’s lawyers asked him not only about his conversations with C-16’s mother but also about his other interactions with abuse victims.

Dunlop was also asked about his mental health and whether he had “anti-homosexual” beliefs. In a letter he submitted midway through the hearing to Justice Terence Plantana , Dunlop said he felt like he was being “attacked” by both sides and that he’d been misled to think he was only going to be asked about C-16’s mother.

Commission counsel Karen Jones asked Narozniak why she did not object once during Dunlop’s cross-examination.

“It depends on the circumstances,” said Narozniak. “If there’s nothing to object to, then no, there are no objections.”

inch-thick document

Narozniak said before the hearing started, she offered Dunlop the option to review an inch-thick document that contained the testimony he’d given in another Project Truth trial, but he declined.

She also asked if he wanted to arrive in Cornwall from his new home in B.C. a few days before the hearing so he could be well-rested, but Dunlop insisted on arriving the night before.

Narozniak said Dunlop’s behaviour at the trial was unbecoming of an experienced police officer.

“I was truly disappointed that Mr. Dunlop did not show the same kind of courage the victims did,” she said.

But during the trial, Dunlop felt like the Crown had abandoned him, said Coalition for Action attorney Frank Horn.

Horn suggested Narozniak only put Dunlop on the stand so his reputation could be torn apart during cross-examination.

“Mr. Dunlop, as a police officer, should know full well that the Crown is not on anybody’s side but the side of the administration of justice,” said Narozniak.

Dunlop has refused to testify at the inquiry, in part because he no longer trusts the province’s justice system. In 2008 he spent seven months in jail on contempt charges.

After the pre-trial hearing, Leduc’s defence team argued his right to be tried within a reasonable amount of time had been violated, and in October 2004, Plantana stayed all the charges.

Narozniak’s counter-argument had been that the defence essentially had waived their client’s rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by not making their argument sooner.

One rumour that circulated afterwards was that Narozniak “didn’t put up a fight” at the stay application, said Dallas Lee, an attorney for The Victims Group.

Narozniak said she was worried about losing, but she and her co-counsel put up a “full-court press” in trying to keep the charges from being thrown out.

“If I was resigned (to losing), I wouldn’t have been staying up all night trying to make sure my submissions were the most compelling possible,” she said.

The inquiry is exploring how public institutions, including the province’s justice system, handled allegations of historical sexual abuse.

Hearings resume Monday at 9:30 a.m. with a new witness.
Article ID# 1403743


DO some police really lie on the stand,and produce false evedince. O come on Narozniak,mrs Narozniak your in cornwall not mexico.SO the crown is on knowbodys side ,just the side of justices.Please advise that to all the other crown attorneys and the victims who go throught the courts for justice.WOW/ Is she saying the victims have knowbody when there cases proceed throught the courts.Please advise what happens to the officer who is caught producing false evedince.PLease tell this once more to Mcintosh

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #1 By luckyred,

If I may put forth a bit of personal philosophy. What Dunlop has been praised for is exposing a possible pedophile ring. Kudos to you Perry and well done. To date there is only speculation based on guided questioning by a bunch of lawyers everyone claims are not acting in the best interest of the victims. What this has created are questions as to the credibility of the victims who do not trust the system, and the system that leads a less then reputable investigation. To some Dunlop was a hero. How do Dunlop’s so called heroics differ from the accused? He appears to have run an investigation in the back halls and alleys. Why did he proceed in this manner? Maybe it was a carefully orchestrated to intensify the conspiracy theory or tender witnesses to suit. These procedures are the same procedures used by the accused. Skunking about and abusing children.

What Perry did was bring to light a potential ring of molesters, but at what cost? Looking in from a distance it would appear he took the trust and faith of the victims misled them into a false sense of security believing they could find restitution and or justice. When it came time to act on his promise he fled. This too could be construed to a conspiracy of mental anguish and mental abuse. I believe if Perry was as thorough in his investigation as people are led to believe he would have known the route the trials and inquiry would take. He also would have known how deep this whole speculated ring went.

Also, if Perry ran his investigation the way it was suppose to be carried out, and how it was suppose to be carried out, he should have no issues with being present at the inquiry. Perry should have attacked the inquiry with conviction based on his expertise, knowledge and evidence. He had enough support with all the self help groups and the accused.

Perry seems to have chosen to follow in the foot steps of his fellow police officers that basically called in sick. The only difference is Perry took the martyr approach. All accomplished the same end, victims were again victimized. However the martyr approach will present Perry as a hero to people in despair, while others will label him as a coward.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #2 By itinerant,

Any fool can see what the hell is going on at this clown show.Nobody has touched on police investagations and the proper way of doing investagations,are we to belivie this commissioner is an expert on police investagations.Why the hell are these lawyers acting like this is a trial.They had there chance at the proper trial but used a tecnicalaty to get there clients off.This is not and should not be the perry dunlop inquirey.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #3 By luckyred

This inquiry was called to investigate institutions and their responses to allegations of child abuse. It was not called to investigate Perry Dunlop. I agree wholeheartedly with you luckyred. Now if some of the all knowing all wise people would just get that fact straight in their head they may be able to see why this all started in the first place.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #4 By dodger,