Anthany Dawson's family continues to press on with a civil lawsuit now that BC authorities have denied them their request for a public inquiry. Fundraising continues to secure enough money for legal fees and to pay expert witnesses, etc.

April 14, 2002 - Anthany Dawson's family continues to press on with a civil lawsuit because BC authorities including the Police Complaints Commissioner denied them their request for a public inquiry into his death while being apprehended by police. On April 11th Yvon Gesinghaus, Anthany's aunt testified before a Special Committee reviewing the Police Complaint Process in British Columbia. The committee members were keen to hear the details of Yvon's story about the tragedy that struck their family. Yvon said after the half hour of testimony she felt good that --perhaps for the first time, we were actually heard--. Anthany's mother Nancy Dawson told Turtle Island Native Network she was impressed by how the committee members listened so attentively and she is cautiously optimistic they may make needed changes to the justice system that she feels has not provided justice for Anthany or his relations.

Y. Gesinghaus: Thank you. First, I introduce to you my sister, Nancy Dawson. I read in the newspaper several weeks ago: "Are police complaint processes accessible and fair in your community?" In reading that flyer some more, I see that you are also reviewing the B.C. municipal police complaint process and the work of the police complaint commissioner. I don't know a lot about the entire process or what it should be delivering. What I will tell you about is my family's experience with an incident involving the death of my nephew, my sister's son, Anthany Dawson. His life support was turned off August 13, 1999. I will try to do this in the ten-minute allocation. Anthany was a 29-year-old first nations person in pretty good health. He apparently had suffered some sort of medical distress on August 11, 1999. He was seen running in and out of traffic in Victoria, at rush hour, moaning and groaning and holding his head. There were a lot of people there. Later, we realized that there were at least eight witnesses who saw a police officer put Anthany in a headlock and punch him in the head, while it was very clear to people observing my nephew that he was in medical distress and that it had to do with his head area. He was already moaning and groaning and holding his head. Witnesses say that Anthany was not aggressive during this process but, rather, seemed to be trying to protect himself from further pain. The police, apparently, were on the scene to have my nephew put into an ambulance that was there. Anthany's not responding, because he might be in the middle of a seizure. We'll never know, because he never did wake up. A witness tells us that they heard a police officer say, "Roll over; roll over; when I tell you to fucking roll over, you roll over," and put my nephew in a headlock and punch him twice in the head. Keep in mind that this is while he's in the middle of a seizure. He was then handcuffed and placed face down on a stretcher by the police and other assistants. When the ambulance crew got to check him for his blood pressure and pulse, he didn't have one. The ambulance crew rolled my nephew over, but his handcuffs remained behind his back when they attempted CPR. Now, consider your nephew without blood pressure or a pulse, handcuffed behind his back, and someone is going to perform CPR. What do you think the odds of success are? [1500] You're going to sense some frustration here. It's definite. He got to the hospital. He was placed on life support, and we went through hell. We never knew what happened. We actually had a police officer come to us. We didn't know about any of this violence until days later. While we were in the hospital, praying for my nephew to return to this world, we had a police officer come to us and say: "Do you know of anyone that would try and harm your nephew?" To my sister: "Do you know of anyone that would try and harm your son?" What was that all about, in hindsight? We realized, painfully, that Anthany wasn't going to live. On August 13 we turned that life support down. We had a choice: fast or slow. We turned it down slowly in high hopes that he would start breathing, and as the newspapers tell you, he didn't. At 4:21 p.m. he took his last heartbeat. A couple of days later we had friends come by and say to us: "Is there anything we can do? What happened?" "We don't know. He was just picked up, having some sort of seizure. He was all scratched up and bruised." It was our friends that said: "Would you mind if we went back to the site and asked around as to what happened?" That's how this whole process began. Friends of ours went back to the site and said: "Hey, did you see this?" When they came back and told us what some of the people had told them, we thought: "Good God almighty, what has happened here? What do we do now, on a Sunday afternoon?" We opened up the yellow pages and phoned a lawyer. The lawyer said: "Well, if I were you, I'd phone a private investigator." So off we went, and we got a private investigator. He started taking statements. This is going on a few days now, and the police keep issuing statements in the newspaper: "29-year-old native boy had a heart attack." A day or two later you'd see: "29-year-old native boy had a drug overdose." He had no drugs. He had a minute trace of marijuana — minute. It was like they were trying to do a major cover-up, and they realized: "By Jesus, this is something out of the ordinary. These people aren't just going to sit back and cry and sing a song with their drums." Then it started. You know, the issue here is: how can we improve the police complaint process so that it can hold credibility and be effective? In order to do that, it would be [ Page 307 ] good to have a holistic view on what you can do with a sudden death that also involves police or anyone with an air of authority. I realize we can't do these holistic things, so we're going to go back to looking at the police complaints process. Before we do that, I need to tell you how painful it is for a person of a minority race to try and get some attention in order to have an inquest. No one had ever told us that an inquest was mandatory until we called the First Nations Summit and said: "Something bad has happened to one of our members." Only then, when the political chiefs came on line, were we told: "Well, an inquest is mandatory." Why were we not told that from the beginning? Fortunately, this was the first sudden death we've had in our family. There is no manual. No one ever came to us and said, "This is the process" — no one. We finally got that inquest. Round about that time, the lawyer started saying: "You should file through the police complaints process." Well, I'd been that route before. I could save this province a lot of money, and I'd write the report myself, because I know how those reports for first nations people will come. There's no need for charges. Let's take a look at all we read in the newspapers, all we hear in civil rights. It's all first nations people or minorities being attacked. Do we see them here today, lined up to say: "I think this is how we can make a difference"? I think the poor people gave up, and I can see why they'd give up. [1505] This is the toughest road ever. I wish I could sit back fondly and remember the life of my nephew instead of looking at his broken teeth and his abrasions and life support and saying: "Why is this beautiful man dead?" The geneticist told us that if Anthany had made it to the hospital and if he was indeed in medical distress, he probably could have been revived. But he didn't make it to the hospital alive. We finally got our inquest. We were told that this inquest is a procedure in which a coroner is appointed. This is an impartial person. They have legal counsel. Their job is to represent the deceased. They say, on behalf of my nephew: "Why am I dead? How could this be avoided in the future?" It sounded good. I went through it. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case. It was a procedure set up where everyone could say: "Yes, I did partake in this scene. According to this bylaw and this bylaw, this is why I was able to carry out what I did; therefore, I'm innocent." Nobody asked the question: "Why am I dead?" — not even remotely. I think an inquest is designed to convince the average, middle-class B.C. citizen that all is well in our province and there's nothing to worry about. It didn't answer any of the questions. That's the inquest. As the process unfolded during the inquest — and there's scads of papers, reports of it — we began to realize there was a pattern here. Do you know the RCMP did an independent review of the police as well? What happened to my nephew is quite a serious allegation. Imagine being choked while you're in the middle of a seizure — face down, punched, your airway restricted. The RCMP did an independent investigation of the police officers. They got up at the inquest, and they said: "I did this thorough investigation. There is no damage whatsoever on behalf of the police." But do you know what? They never interviewed one of the policemen involved — not one. They have the right to abstain from an interview. How could they have done a thorough investigation? None of those policemen wrote notes in their black book, other than one or two sentences. If someone died on your watch, even if you're a professional, you would tend to want to write a few notes down. We found out almost at the end of the inquest that there's something called a critical incident report. It's to be filled out every time someone dies on your watch. This wasn't filled out. As a matter of fact, it was never referred to by all the lawyers that the police had at that inquest until one policeman referred to it while on the stand. By this time — this is the third restart of the inquest…. That was a real sad explanation of justice, that inquest, but it started three times. This is the third start. By then, the coroner's lawyer is starting to look at the police lawyers like: "Somebody's got to tell the truth pretty soon." When they found out about that critical incident report, a big yelling match broke out between the coroner's lawyer and the police lawyers. The coroner's lawyer started to say: "You said nothing would be hidden. What happened to this critical incident report?" "It's under review," they said, yelling, yelling, yelling in the inquest. The coroner had to run from her table, grab the suit coats of the men — the lawyers — and drag them into the back room. In the meantime, the people observing the inquest looked at all of this. My Lord. There were so many incidents similar to that through the inquest. Every time the lawyer would start to say: "Whose handcuffs were they?" they said: "We don't know. All the handcuffs are the same." Every time we'd get closer and realize that handcuffs had serial numbers on them and could have easily been identified, the coroner's lawyer or the police lawyers would stop that line of questioning and say: "That is for a public hearing. That will follow." [1510] It's in the transcripts. We were led to believe we would have a public hearing as soon as we left the inquest because there were so many questions left unanswered. As a matter of fact, that inquest opened more questions to us than it answered anything or provided any closure whatsoever. We're going through this inquest, kind of relaxing a bit, saying: "Well, everything else is going to go to the public hearing. We'll get our questions answered; we'll bring this out. We will do everything we can to make sure this doesn't happen to another family." What a surprise to realize that the inquest procedure merely used the public inquiry issue as a smokescreen. Off it [ Page 308 ] went to the police complaint commissioner, who reviewed the case and — surprise! — decided there was no need for a public hearing. Now, he based that info on the following. This is a letter that he sent to us. It's called: "The commissioner's decision re Anthany Dawson, an application for public hearing." "The seriousness of the complaint is one of the criteria that they must answer." Well, as far as the commissioner had decided, he had to ascertain the truth. Did Constable Sheldon really punch Anthany in the head? Sheldon says he didn't. Eight witnesses said he did, but the commissioner decided it wasn't that serious. Anthany didn't die from a blow to the head. Now: "…the seriousness of the harm alleged to have been suffered by the complainant." How serious was that? He's dead. He may not have been if he'd been placed safely on a stretcher and further pain not brought on to him. The other is: "Is there a reasonable prospect that a public hearing would assist in ascertaining the truth?" Yes, we were constantly assured while we were at the inquest that our questions could have been answered at a public hearing. Their own lawyers had stated that. But he decides no, it wouldn't be in the best interests. "Was there an arguable case that can be made that there was a flaw in the investigation?" He didn't think so, because he thoroughly reviewed the files of the Victoria city police, the RCMP investigation and the inquest transcripts. But the Victoria city police kept no notes, the RCMP were not allowed to interview the police in question, and every time we'd start to ask relevant questions at the inquest, we were stopped because that was going to go to a public hearing. So what did he review? "Was there a need for a disciplinary action?" Well, he hasn't decided whether or not those eight witnesses are telling the truth. He goes on for two pages deciding whether or not there is relevance to have interveners. We had — again, as I told you — the First Nations Summit help us in getting through this legal rigmarole. We also had the Musgamagw Tsawataineuk tribal council, which we are direct members of, standing in for us. He goes through all of this, and he decides that there is no need to have a public hearing after all. He considered in his review those three files: the RCMP, the Victoria city file and the complete transcript of the testimony given at the inquest. He also considered the jury's decisions. [1515] Now, what can be done to improve this system after we've gone through this? Believe me, our hearts and souls were all over that whole process. How would I like to see another family go through this process and feel safe and feel good? Well, for starters, let's decide that police cannot investigate themselves in an impartial manner. Let's face it: it's a joke. There is no way that a person who is working in the same building with the same mission can effectively investigate the allegation of wrongdoing by one of their co-workers. Imagine how you would feel, having to go to work after you've said: "You're wrong." You wouldn't feel too good. You wouldn't be too popular. B.C., Canada, the world, should not put that type of responsibility on anyone. It's not healthy. There has to be at least one more B.C. citizen who is capable of conducting an impartial investigation of a police officer other than another police officer. There has to be one more person. We don't have to put that weight on a police officer. Bill Naughton was the investigator in our case. He is a Victoria city cop, and he works with the very people he was supposed to be carrying out a thorough investigation of. Now, the process claims to hold no politics, but every time we hit a bump in the road and I was forced to go and see the political leaders in my end, that's when we got the response. I feel there's far too much politics involved here. It was saving the good reputation of the city of Victoria. It talks about the issue being of racism and refers to assigning an employee. The commissioner's report says there's no racism. He said that in section E. At the end of his letter, he says: "…but I'm going to assign a special worker to go and talk to the First Nations Summit and the Musgamagw tribal council to explain." He contradicted himself. Was any special officer offered to come to us and explain the procedures and decision-making process? No, we had to find it on the Internet. I would also say that in a police complaint process, the investigators need to be more thorough and honest in the so-called…. They say "transparent process." Well, make sure it's transparent all the way through, not just where it's going to benefit the police force. This entire review that we went through with my nephew is one-sided. They only took a look at the RCMP, the city police and the inquest. Each time, they had serious shortfalls. Victoria city police had no notes, no report. RCMP could not interview the police in question. The inquest was stopped. Every time we tried to ask a relevant question, it went to a public hearing. They didn't interview Sheldon or any of the police involved. There is a severe lack of openness and honesty in this process and a lot of room for using this transparency phase only when it benefits the police. This is carried out by the independent police commissioner. I justify that by pointing out Mr. Morrison's statement in his decision from my nephew's public hearing. He said there's no sense having a public hearing. Among that, he stated that he refers to the coroner's court of British Columbia. I'm going to quote this to you. This is where I say: let's be transparent, and let's be honest and refer to things. He says: "We the jury classify the death as accidental." Well, that's true. But in a case of this magnitude, of the strong implications that something wrong was done, let's take a look at the rest of this page of this jury. "The jury also found that the medical cause of death was anoxic encephalopathy with tonsillar herniation due to restraint-associated cardiac arrest, agitated delirium and hyperthermia due to episodic metabolic [ Page 309 ] crisis…and positional asphyxia." In English: he was choked to death during a seizure. Why wasn't that included in his findings? He only selected what he needed to do — cut and paste. Now, the jury was in the same room that we were. They heard the lawyers constantly tell the inquest that the questions our lawyers were asking would be addressed at a public hearing and inquiry. They heard that. They knew this was going to proceed further. We knew that it was going to proceed to a public hearing, because that's what the system told us. [1520] Now they've changed their mind, when they're out of the limelight. Why? Why is one person allowed to make that decision when we went through all of this? The pain of turning that machine off and just begging that little guy to breathe on his own, and this man can blow us off? No. That's not justice. That's not even fair. And that jury believed the same thing. That jury believed we were getting a public hearing. At no time did any one of those lawyers come out and say: "Well, you know, it's pretty iffy whether or not you're going to get a public hearing." At no time did they say that to us. That's fair and honest? When you go through this process again, you tell them to be honest and fair in their transparent summary and decisions. Don't let them look for another loophole to slide their members through. That's not what this process is about. No, I didn't expect this process to lead forward and say, oh, this family really needs some answers, but I expected to have the opportunity to ask the questions. How else would I improve it? Be more thorough, again. I wouldn't just rely on the Victoria city reports. Remember, no one took those notes. No one filed a critical incident report. No one looked for the witnesses until they realized we weren't going away. Don't rely on the RCMP investigation. Remember, they're not allowed to interview police officers that might be sued, because those police officers are protected. If I have a problem with the police officer that may have contributed to the death of my nephew, why do I have to sue the city of Victoria? Don't rely on the inquest transcripts. Every time those inquest transcripts get anywhere, we're told it's going to be passed on to a public hearing, so don't ever allow your police commissioner to rely on them again. Are we satisfied? No, we're not satisfied with this entire process. Again, good money is being laid out in a farce of an arrangement that claims to be impartial, but their investigators live and work in the same area. It's not fair to them. It's not fair to families of people who have died. We're not alone. As you can see, we are a minority. I don't see a lot of us lined up on the police complaints procedural form here, because we just gave up. So why are we here? Anthany won't come back. It took us almost three years before we could say he was dead. But like the very first people who stand up and say no to something, who say, "By Jesus, I'm not going to just go in a corner and cry; I'm going to make a change," I want to believe no other family is going to go through this. But it might happen. I just want to make sure they get treated fairly. One day, hopefully by the time our great-grandchildren are born, we will have achieved equality. Right now our sons have cell phones. Why? So they can call me if the police ever pull them over. Is that how a B.C. citizen should feel? I hope this process helps to achieve your goal of improving the police complaint commissioner's process, his role and his mandate. Don't let him or any of the system just read what is important to them. Make them look at the whole picture. Make them worry about B.C. and Canada, and then you'll make a difference. We thank you. J. Nuraney (Chair): Thank you, Yvon. [1525] K. Johnston: Thanks for your presentation, especially in light of the pain you must be going through to give it. A couple of times you referred to some lawyers saying through the process of the inquest, I think you said, that there would be a public hearing. Y. Gesinghaus: They're in our transcripts of the inquest. They are listed in there. K. Johnston: Were these your lawyers? Y. Gesinghaus: No, that's the police lawyers. The police lawyers would say: "That's for the public hearing." Our lawyer stood back and said: "Public hearing?" Then we said: "Well, what's a public hearing?" Keep in mind we'd never had to go through this, fortunately. He said: "Well, this is where we can actually ask these relevant questions." K. Johnston: So you were under that understanding. Y. Gesinghaus: Yes. The police lawyers did tell us that. K. Johnston: In terms of the communication you got from Mr. Morrison's office, I'm not sure that we have that, and I think it might be important, if you so wish. Y. Gesinghaus: Yes. I've got…. K. Johnston: If we could see that, I do have some interesting questions on that. Did you have any further communication with Mr. Morrison after that in terms of direct contact in any way to ask why he wrote that letter and why he made that decision? Y. Gesinghaus: No. I believe our option then was that if we didn't like the police complaint commissioner's report, we could always write him a letter and ask him to reconsider. [ Page 310 ] K. Johnston: Even though there was a death in this case, which I think was probably the most severe thing that could happen, he felt that wasn't significant enough? Y. Gesinghaus: He saw it not to be significant at all. When you read this report…. I do hope you have the time. I tried to recap it in 20 minutes. My passion probably extended it a while. He doesn't refer to it at all. There's a whole bunch of reasons why he was able to bypass it. He spends two pages in this little report citing Quebec acts and whether or not first nations organizations should be granted standing. K. Johnston: I know this is a difficult question, but do you have any sense that if, in fact, a public hearing had been called, you would have had a more favourable view on this whole process? Y. Gesinghaus: I would have, because I would have had questions answered. I would have been able to hear what Sheldon had to say and the other police officers involved. At the inquest we weren't allowed to do anything. They kept saying: "Well, we're not allowed to ask that here. Wait for the public hearing." "Okay, we'll wait." If you have any influence in the inquest…. The other thing I'd say is — and this has to be police-related; it has to be top system: every time a police officer gave testimony at that inquest, 15 or 20 uniformed policemen would arrive in the inquest room and sit there as a display of support. What was that all about? K. Johnston: How long were you under the strain? How long was the time frame on this, from the time the inquest happened until the final resolution of that letter over there that you've got in front of you? Was it a short period of time? A long period of time? Y. Gesinghaus: It was a year and a half. K. Johnston: So it took a year and a half for you to get an answer, even in terms of…. Y. Gesinghaus: Yes. October 1, 2001, is when he rendered his decision. They restarted the police complaint commissioner review on August 29, 2001. J. Nuraney (Chair): When did the inquest end? Y. Gesinghaus: December 1, 2000. J. Nuraney (Chair): It took ten months for him to render his decision? Y. Gesinghaus: No. The decision began on August 27, 2001 — the request from legal counsel for the complainant, dated August 27, 2001 — to ask for a public hearing. You see, we thought that public hearing was going to automatically flow. We didn't realize that things had to be filled out. K. Johnston: I'm sorry. I'm a little confused. How long from the process that it got to the police complaint commissioner's office to the time he rendered a decision? Y. Gesinghaus: The request for a public hearing, or the police complaint process? K. Johnston: The initial complaint kick-off process. Was it shortly after the incident? [1530] Y. Gesinghaus: It was shortly after the incident that a police complaint form 1 was filled out. Then it was put on hold while we went through the inquest. Then it restarted after the inquest had finally come to an end. The inquest began in July of 2000 and ended December 1, 2000. It had to stop and start three times. K. Johnston: I've got the drift of it now. Thanks. Just one further question, Mr. Chair, if I may. Were you apprised, as this went along, from the filing of your form 1 to the final…? Did somebody keep in touch with you, communicate with you what the status of this ongoing situation was? Did anybody ever talk to you? Y. Gesinghaus: No. They communicated with the lawyer, advised us that they were standing down from their investigation until the inquest was done, brought their show and tell into the inquest and then restarted after the inquest was over. It was a while before they restarted after the inquest, because we did not realize we had to refile. J. Nuraney (Chair): Refile? Y. Gesinghaus: Refile. Now, I'm vague there, and I will stop there until I check with our lawyer, but I understand…. We waited for this hearing to be announced. When we said, "Hey, what's happening with our public hearing?" I believe they said: "You've got to file." When we listened to the inquest, we were led to believe that a hearing was going to follow almost automatically, so we missed that step. J. Nuraney (Chair): Is that step described in the act? I don't think it's in the procedural part. Once you have completed the form 1, the process should automatically kick in. Y. Gesinghaus: I don't know. Like I say, I don't know the process inside and out. I wanted to come and tell you how, as a family, we felt from this end. The legalities of it — I'm sorry, sir — I don't know. J. Nuraney (Chair): Yvon, it is certainly a matter of concern of to us. From what you are saying, there seem to be some shortcomings in the way the thing seems to [ Page 311 ] have been handled, particularly in regard to the act as it is laid out and the procedure, which is fairly clear. Would you mind leaving those documents, or copies, with us, please? We would like to know the timings of the different things that happened. Y. Gesinghaus: Sure. J. Nuraney (Chair): One more question from my side, Yvon. Am I correct in assuming that the inquest was concluded at the end of the year 2000? Y. Gesinghaus: December 1, 2000. J. Nuraney (Chair): You heard nothing from the commissioner until August of 2001? Y. Gesinghaus: No. That is when we filed again. I believe we must have contacted them just prior to August. I can find out from our lawyer when it was we phoned them and said: "What's happening with our public hearing?" I do realize there was some sort of glitch in the process, where they said, "Oh, do you want to us proceed?" or something to that effect. Again, we'll have to stop there until I check to see what the procedure was. Understanding the weight and emotional strain, there's a lot of dates out of my head for now. J. Nuraney (Chair): Would you please go back and check that for us? It is critical for us to understand why you were asked to reapply for a public hearing. Y. Gesinghaus: We will. I can give you an answer within a few minutes of leaving here. I'll phone and check. J. Nuraney (Chair): Whatever documentation you can supply to us would be greatly appreciated. Y. Gesinghaus: A copy of the inquest papers? J. Nuraney (Chair): Please. Y. Gesinghaus: That will take a few days. They're about this high. J. Nuraney (Chair): Is it on the website? Y. Gesinghaus: The inquest? No. We had to purchase those transcripts. We have the jury's report. We have the response from Mr. Morrison. Again, you know, there's a family and there's a nation. Anthany was initiated as one of our chiefs for Kingcome Inlet. We're 6,000 strong. We have all of that. We have his friends, his immediate family and all of the concerned citizens of B.C. all looking as to why this boy died. One person made that decision, you know. I wonder: at whose right hand does he sit? It's scary. My mother was one of the first peoples of this country. My father went off to fight in the war to make damn sure that I had the right to be free. I'll leave it at that. [1535] J. Nuraney (Chair): Any other questions, members? Well, I thank you both, ladies. We certainly share in your pain. Please do make sure that we have the documents. We are particularly interested in the procedural aspect of this matter, not in the case itself, so whatever you can supply will be greatly appreciated. Y. Gesinghaus: Yes, we will. J. Nuraney (Chair): Sorry, there's one more question. Richard? R. Lee: I just want a point of clarification. First, you say that the city police were involved… Y. Gesinghaus: Yes, the Victoria city police. R. Lee: …and then the RCMP. Are they both involved? Y. Gesinghaus: No. The RCMP was asked to carry out an independent investigation of the Victoria city police's actions. J. Nuraney (Chair): That's the procedure. Y. Gesinghaus: When he did do this, he carried it out as an independent police, but he wasn't allowed to interview the police officers. They were protected under some legal thing, where they didn't have to be interviewed. R. Lee: Okay. Thank you. J. Nuraney (Chair): Thank you once again, ladies. Thank you for coming. Y. Gesinghaus: Thank you.