Allegedly fabricated videos and Humpty Dumpty quotes mark a judge’s decision to turn down appeals on convictions related to failing to display an ‘N’ driver’s sign, among other things.
“‘When I use a word... it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less,’” said Justice Frankel, recalling the words of Humpty Dumpty in the sequel to Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.
It was a quote used to describe some evidence put forth Jeevan Singh Gill, the person who was appealing convictions related to failing to display an ‘N’ on his vehicle, among other things.
The judge even went as far as calling some of that evidence “a cornucopia of mendacity.”
“I am of the view Mr. Gill is a person to whom the truth is a stranger,” wrote Frankel.
Justice Frankel’s reasons for judgment were published on March 26.
It follows a lengthy court dispute that stemmed from an incident in March 28, 2015 when RCMP stopped Gill as he was going northbound on Highway 99, near Squamish.
A written copy of Frankel’s judgment says constables Meaghan Shields — now Abendroth — and Matthew Innes removed Gill, who was driving, and three people from Gill’s vehicle, detained them and searched the vehicle.
Officers charged Gill with failing to display an ‘N’ sign, having too many passengers and for having open liquor in a motor vehicle.
This prompted a trial on Feb. 19, 2016 where the judge dismissed the open liquor charge, as he was not satisfied the “almost-empty beer can” found in the vehicle contained alcohol.
However, Gill was found guilty of failing to display the ‘N’ sign and of having too many people in his car.
During that trial, Gill testified that there was only one passenger in the back seat of the vehicle. He also said he displayed an ‘N’ on the inside of the vehicle’s rear window.
As he pulled over, he said, the ‘N’ fell out of view when a passenger hit it with his hand. In cross-examination, Gill said the sign slid down when he braked. Gill added the two passengers the officers removed from his vehicle were people he knew who were standing on the side of the highway at the exact spot he was pulled over. He said they got in the vehicle after he stopped, but before the officers approached.
Gill’s testimony was dismissed at the time by the judge as “fabricated.”
Gill later appealed the decision, during which he filed an affidavit from Baljinderjit Singh Atwal as fresh evidence.
In the affidavit, Atwal said he was sitting in the front passenger seat of the car Gill was driving on the day police ticketed Gill, said Frankel. The document also said Atwal was 44 years old and with a valid Class 1 licence at the time.
Novice drivers are allowed more than one passenger so long as there is a supervisor at least 25 years old with a valid Class 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 licence.
However, a police investigation found Atwal was not in Gill’s vehicle when it was stopped by officers, Frankel said. Gill was then charged with obstructing justice by filing a false affidavit.
Court documents say Gill’s counsel entered a guilty plea on his behalf during trial on the obstruction charge.
He later tried withdrawing his guilty plea on the basis there had been a miscarriage of justice, Frankel wrote.
As the court dispute carried on, Gill eventually wound up submitting two videos as fresh evidence.
Court documents say one video allegedly shows a man, whom Gill appeared to imply to be his father, threatening to beat him unless Gill pleads guilty.
Frankel dismissed the video as a fabrication.
The video, which is filmed in a garage, shows Gill’s face briefly, shows the panning of items of shelves, then a man — presumably Gill’s father — who walks into the garage, Frankel wrote.
The man asks Gill what he is doing, and Gill replies that he is trying to “move stuff, find out some stuff here,” the court document said.
“To begin with, it defies credulity to believe Mr. Gill just happened to be using the video recording function of his cellular telephone while looking for ‘stuff’ in the garage,” wrote Frankel, among other things, with regard to that video.
The other video submitted is said to show that an ‘N’ was displayed in the vehicle at the time officers pulled Gill over.
Frankel described the video as turning black, red and white. An ‘N’ appears against the background of a window. Among other things, blurred images and voices can be heard. A still picture of Gill and Innes appears.
Frankel believed the audio in Gill’s video was taken from the police dashcam video of the incident.
“It was made after,” Frankel wrote in his judgment.
“Constable Innes wore the microphone used to record the dashcam video’s audio track,” said Frankel. “For that reason he is most audible.”
Frankel said the audio would not have this quality if the recording was made by a cellphone under the seat of the vehicle or on its roof, which were two areas Gill said the phone might have been during the police stop.
