“Cop at centre of Cornwall inquiry appeals contempt convictions” & related articles

Canadaeast.com

17 January 2010

TORONTO – The seven months a former police officer served in jail for refusing to testify at a public inquiry, largely of his own making, amounted to “cruel and unusual punishment,” the man writes in appealing his contempt convictions.

Perry Dunlop led a crusade for years in Cornwall, Ont., to root out pedophiles and his work sparked calls for a public inquiry.

The Cornwall inquiry‘s official mandate was to examine institutional responses to historical claims of sexual abuse, but many were looking to the report, released in December, to once and for all debunk rumours of a pedophile ring. Commissioner G. Normand Glaude declined to do so in his more than 1600-page report.

Dunlop, now living in Duncan, B.C., was called in September 2007 to testify at the inquiry. While he did appear several times, he refused to answer any questions.

He was found guilty of civil contempt in November 2007 and sentenced to six months. He was then found guilty of criminal contempt in March 2008 and sentenced to a further 30 days in jail.

The convictions are a “travesty” that must be overturned, Dunlop writes in documents filed with the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

“I was targeted for cruel and unusual punishment to the point of excessive and prolonged isolated incarceration for speaking out to protect children and expose criminal activity within the justice system,” Dunlop writes.

“I am appealing also on the grounds that the sentences imposed on me were excessive, inhumane and constituted unlawful and illegal imprisonment.”

Dunlop’s appeal is scheduled to be heard Monday, but he is self-represented and it’s unclear whether he will attend in person. The Crown didn’t notify Dunlop of the hearing date and attempts to reach him over the past week have not been fruitful, according to information in Dunlop’s court file.

If Dunlop is there Monday the appeal will be argued. If not, Dunlop will be contacted and given the choice of either setting a new hearing date or having it proceed in writing.

There are no legal grounds to overturn the contempt findings because Dunlop has not given a lawful excuse for his refusal to testify, lawyers for the inquiry’s commissioner and the Crown write in court documents.

“While Mr. Dunlop may have concerns about giving evidence before the inquiry or doubts about the inquiry’s effectiveness, they do not amount to lawful excuse,” the commissioner’s lawyers write.

“Public inquiries have a long history in Canada and are an important part of our legal and political fabric.”

Dunlop’s lawful excuse was that he was misled. Commission counsel originally told him they couldn’t force him to testify, but later learned they could use an interprovincial summons to compel his testimony.

Dunlop writes he was punished by the court for expressing his opinions, thoughts and beliefs, contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

But the Crown calls Dunlop’s “flagrant defiance” or the court order an “impermissible” attack. He shouldn’t be permitted to justify his defiance under the charter because he didn’t exercise his legal right to appeal the order, the Crown writes.

As for the sentences, they were served in isolation because he is a former police officer, and were fit in the circumstances, the Crown and commissioner’s lawyers write.

“The punishment for contempt should serve as a warning to those who might be inclined to breach court orders,” they write.

“Our legal system is wounded when court orders are ignored.”

Dunlop has long maintained high-profile local officials were operating a pedophile ring in Cornwall and that there was a conspiracy by the government and the justice system to cover it up.

His quest has earned him a loyal band of followers, but also much criticism. His refusal to hand over to the provincial police information he gleaned in his unsanctioned, off-hours investigation has been blamed for the failed prosecutions of several alleged child abusers.

Dunlop began his pursuit in good faith, inquiry Commissioner G. Normand Glaude wrote in his report, but his distrust of public institutions eventually overwhelmed what was a
genuine desire to help children.

_________________________________________________________

Cop at centre of Cornwall inquiry appeals contempt convictions

MSN News

17 January 2010

By Allison Jones, THE CANADIAN PRESS, cp.org, Updated: January 17, 2010 4:37 PM

TORONTO – The seven months a former police officer served in jail for refusing to testify at a public inquiry, largely of his own making, amounted to “cruel and unusual punishment,” the man writes in appealing his contempt convictions.

Perry Dunlop led a crusade for years in Cornwall, Ont., to root out pedophiles and his work sparked calls for a public inquiry.

The Cornwall inquiry’s official mandate was to examine institutional responses to historical claims of sexual abuse, but many were looking to the report, released in December, to once and for all debunk rumours of a pedophile ring. Commissioner G. Normand Glaude declined to do so in his more than 1600-page report.

Dunlop, now living in Duncan, B.C., was called in September 2007 to testify at the inquiry. While he did appear several times, he refused to answer any questions.

He was found guilty of civil contempt in November 2007 and sentenced to six months. He was then found guilty of criminal contempt in March 2008 and sentenced to a further 30 days in jail.

The convictions are a “travesty” that must be overturned, Dunlop writes in documents filed with the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

“I was targeted for cruel and unusual punishment to the point of excessive and prolonged isolated incarceration for speaking out to protect children and expose criminal activity within the justice system,” Dunlop writes.

“I am appealing also on the grounds that the sentences imposed on me were excessive, inhumane and constituted unlawful and illegal imprisonment.”

Dunlop’s appeal is scheduled to be heard Monday, but he is self-represented and it’s unclear whether he will attend in person. The Crown didn’t notify Dunlop of the hearing date and attempts to reach him over the past week have not been fruitful, according to information in Dunlop’s court file.

If Dunlop is there Monday the appeal will be argued. If not, Dunlop will be contacted and given the choice of either setting a new hearing date or having it proceed in writing.

There are no legal grounds to overturn the contempt findings because Dunlop has not given a lawful excuse for his refusal to testify, lawyers for the inquiry’s commissioner and the Crown write in court documents.

“While Mr. Dunlop may have concerns about giving evidence before the inquiry or doubts about the inquiry’s effectiveness, they do not amount to lawful excuse,” the commissioner’s lawyers write.

“Public inquiries have a long history in Canada and are an important part of our legal and political fabric.”

Dunlop’s lawful excuse was that he was misled. Commission counsel originally told him they couldn’t force him to testify, but later learned they could use an interprovincial summons to compel his testimony.

Dunlop writes he was punished by the court for expressing his opinions, thoughts and beliefs, contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

But the Crown calls Dunlop’s “flagrant defiance” or the court order an “impermissible” attack. He shouldn’t be permitted to justify his defiance under the charter because he didn’t exercise his legal right to appeal the order, the Crown writes.

As for the sentences, they were served in isolation because he is a former police officer, and were fit in the circumstances, the Crown and commissioner’s lawyers write.

“The punishment for contempt should serve as a warning to those who might be inclined to breach court orders,” they write.

“Our legal system is wounded when court orders are ignored.”

Dunlop has long maintained high-profile local officials were operating a pedophile ring in Cornwall and that there was a conspiracy by the government and the justice system to cover it up.

His quest has earned him a loyal band of followers, but also much criticism. His refusal to hand over to the provincial police information he gleaned in his unsanctioned, off-hours investigation has been blamed for the failed prosecutions of several alleged child abusers.
Dunlop began his pursuit in good faith, inquiry Commissioner G. Normand Glaude wrote in his report, but his distrust of public institutions eventually overwhelmed what was a genuine desire to help children.

____________________________________________

Cop at centre of Cornwall inquiry appeals contempt convictions

VirginRadio.ca

17 January 2010

By: Allison Jones, THE CANADIAN PRESS

TORONTO – The seven months a former police officer served in jail for refusing to testify at a public inquiry, largely of his own making, amounted to “cruel and unusual punishment,” the man writes in appealing his contempt convictions.

Perry Dunlop led a crusade for years in Cornwall, Ont., to root out pedophiles and his work sparked calls for a public inquiry.

The Cornwall inquiry’s official mandate was to examine institutional responses to historical claims of sexual abuse, but many were looking to the report, released in December, to once and for all debunk rumours of a pedophile ring. Commissioner G. Normand Glaude declined to do so in his more than 1600-page report.

Dunlop, now living in Duncan, B.C., was called in September 2007 to testify at the inquiry. While he did appear several times, he refused to answer any questions.

He was found guilty of civil contempt in November 2007 and sentenced to six months. He was then found guilty of criminal contempt in March 2008 and sentenced to a further 30 days in jail.

The convictions are a “travesty” that must be overturned, Dunlop writes in documents filed with the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

“I was targeted for cruel and unusual punishment to the point of excessive and prolonged isolated incarceration for speaking out to protect children and expose criminal activity within the justice system,” Dunlop writes.

“I am appealing also on the grounds that the sentences imposed on me were excessive, inhumane and constituted unlawful and illegal imprisonment.”

Dunlop’s appeal is scheduled to be heard Monday, but he is self-represented and it’s unclear whether he will attend in person. The Crown didn’t notify Dunlop of the hearing date and attempts to reach him over the past week have not been fruitful, according to information in Dunlop’s court file.

If Dunlop is there Monday the appeal will be argued. If not, Dunlop will be contacted and given the choice of either setting a new hearing date or having it proceed in writing.

There are no legal grounds to overturn the contempt findings because Dunlop has not given a lawful excuse for his refusal to testify, lawyers for the inquiry’s commissioner and the Crown write in court documents.

“While Mr. Dunlop may have concerns about giving evidence before the inquiry or doubts about the inquiry’s effectiveness, they do not amount to lawful excuse,” the commissioner’s lawyers write.

“Public inquiries have a long history in Canada and are an important part of our legal and political fabric.”

Dunlop’s lawful excuse was that he was misled. Commission counsel originally told him they couldn’t force him to testify, but later learned they could use an interprovincial summons to compel his testimony.

Dunlop writes he was punished by the court for expressing his opinions, thoughts and beliefs, contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

But the Crown calls Dunlop’s “flagrant defiance” or the court order an “impermissible” attack. He shouldn’t be permitted to justify his defiance under the charter because he didn’t exercise his legal right to appeal the order, the Crown writes.

As for the sentences, they were served in isolation because he is a former police officer, and were fit in the circumstances, the Crown and commissioner’s lawyers write.

“The punishment for contempt should serve as a warning to those who might be inclined to breach court orders,” they write.

“Our legal system is wounded when court orders are ignored.”

Dunlop has long maintained high-profile local officials were operating a pedophile ring in Cornwall and that there was a conspiracy by the government and the justice system to cover it up.

His quest has earned him a loyal band of followers, but also much criticism. His refusal to hand over to the provincial police information he gleaned in his unsanctioned, off-hours investigation has been blamed for the failed prosecutions of several alleged child abusers.

Dunlop began his pursuit in good faith, inquiry Commissioner G. Normand Glaude wrote in his report, but his distrust of public institutions eventually overwhelmed what was a genuine desire to help children.

__________________________________________

Former Cornwall officer fights contempt conviction

CBC.ca

18 January 2010 | 9:21 AM ET

The Canadian Press

The case of a former Cornwall, Ont., police officer convicted of contempt goes before the Ontario Court of Appeal Monday.

Perry Dunlop led a crusade for years to root out pedophiles and his work eventually led to the Cornwall inquiry, which wrapped up last month.

Dunlop, now living in Duncan, B.C., was called to testify at the inquiry and while he did appear, he refused to answer any questions.

He was found guilty of civil contempt in November 2007 and sentenced to six months.

He was then found guilty of criminal contempt in March 2008 and sentenced to a further 30 days in jail.

Dunlop’s appeal is scheduled to be heard Monday, but he has represented himself in court and it’s unclear whether he’ll be there in person.

According to the court, the Crown didn’t notify Dunlop of the hearing date and attempts to reach him over the past week have been unsuccessful.

In documents filed with the court, Dunlop called the contempt convictions a “travesty.”

“I was targeted for cruel and unusual punishment to the point of excessive and prolonged isolated incarceration for speaking out to protect children and expose criminal activity within the justice system,” Dunlop wrote.

“I am appealing also on the grounds that the sentences imposed on me were excessive, inhumane and constituted unlawful and illegal imprisonment.”

__________________________________________

Cop at centre of Cornwall inquiry appeals contempt convictions

Macleans.ca

17 January 2010 – 16:37

Allison Jones, THE CANADIAN PRESS

TORONTO – The seven months a former police officer served in jail for refusing to testify at a public inquiry, largely of his own making, amounted to “cruel and unusual punishment,” the man writes in appealing his contempt convictions.

Perry Dunlop led a crusade for years in Cornwall, Ont., to root out pedophiles and his work sparked calls for a public inquiry.

The Cornwall inquiry’s official mandate was to examine institutional responses to historical claims of sexual abuse, but many were looking to the report, released in December, to once and for all debunk rumours of a pedophile ring. Commissioner G. Normand Glaude declined to do so in his more than 1600-page report.

Dunlop, now living in Duncan, B.C., was called in September 2007 to testify at the inquiry. While he did appear several times, he refused to answer any questions.

He was found guilty of civil contempt in November 2007 and sentenced to six months. He was then found guilty of criminal contempt in March 2008 and sentenced to a further 30 days in jail.

The convictions are a “travesty” that must be overturned, Dunlop writes in documents filed with the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

“I was targeted for cruel and unusual punishment to the point of excessive and prolonged isolated incarceration for speaking out to protect children and expose criminal activity within the justice system,” Dunlop writes.

“I am appealing also on the grounds that the sentences imposed on me were excessive, inhumane and constituted unlawful and illegal imprisonment.”

Dunlop’s appeal is scheduled to be heard Monday, but he is self-represented and it’s unclear whether he will attend in person. The Crown didn’t notify Dunlop of the hearing date and attempts to reach him over the past week have not been fruitful, according to information in Dunlop’s court file.

If Dunlop is there Monday the appeal will be argued. If not, Dunlop will be contacted and given the choice of either setting a new hearing date or having it proceed in writing.

There are no legal grounds to overturn the contempt findings because Dunlop has not given a lawful excuse for his refusal to testify, lawyers for the inquiry’s commissioner and the Crown write in court documents.

“While Mr. Dunlop may have concerns about giving evidence before the inquiry or doubts about the inquiry’s effectiveness, they do not amount to lawful excuse,” the commissioner’s lawyers write.

“Public inquiries have a long history in Canada and are an important part of our legal and political fabric.”

Dunlop’s lawful excuse was that he was misled. Commission counsel originally told him they couldn’t force him to testify, but later learned they could use an interprovincial summons to compel his testimony.

Dunlop writes he was punished by the court for expressing his opinions, thoughts and beliefs, contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

But the Crown calls Dunlop’s “flagrant defiance” or the court order an “impermissible” attack. He shouldn’t be permitted to justify his defiance under the charter because he didn’t exercise his legal right to appeal the order, the Crown writes.

As for the sentences, they were served in isolation because he is a former police officer, and were fit in the circumstances, the Crown and commissioner’s lawyers write.

“The punishment for contempt should serve as a warning to those who might be inclined to breach court orders,” they write.

“Our legal system is wounded when court orders are ignored.”

Dunlop has long maintained high-profile local officials were operating a pedophile ring in Cornwall and that there was a conspiracy by the government and the justice system to cover it up.

His quest has earned him a loyal band of followers, but also much criticism. His refusal to hand over to the provincial police information he gleaned in his unsanctioned, off-hours investigation has been blamed for the failed prosecutions of several alleged child abusers.

Dunlop began his pursuit in good faith, inquiry Commissioner G. Normand Glaude wrote in his report, but his distrust of public institutions eventually overwhelmed what was a genuine desire to help children.

__________________________________________________

Appeal Date For Perry Dunlop Today

Cornwall AM 1220

January 18, 2010 — Perry Dunlop is back in the news today. The case of the former Cornwall police officer convicted of contempt goes before the Appeal Court this morning. Dunlop was called to testify at the Cornwall Public Inquiry and while he did appear, he refused to answer most of the questions. He was found guilty of civil contempt and sentenced to six months. He was then found guilty of criminal contempt and sentenced to a further 30 days in jail. It’s unclear whether he’ll be at the Appeal in Toronto in person. According to the court, the Crown didn’t notify Dunlopof the hearing date and attempts to reach him over the past week have been unsuccessful. (With files from the Canadian Press)