EDITORIAL: On tasers, the evidence is in

August 16, 2010
Globe and Mail

Taser International, the manufacturer of the electric stun gun, went to court in British Columbia to quash the key finding of a commission of inquiry – that tasers can kill. It tried to censor a free society's ability to get the truth about a weapon in common use by police across North America. Taser actually demanded the right to exercise a kind of “prior restraint:” to be shown the inquiry report before release, so it could make objections. Because it was denied this right, the Arizona-based manufacturer said, the report was unfair and illegal.

Thankfully, the B.C. Supreme Court stood up last week against this attempt to defeat the public's right to come to its own conclusions. It pointed out that Thomas Braidwood, a retired appeal-court judge, had invited Taser to make presentations and provide studies. When Taser recommended presentations from experts, the commission arranged to hear from them. Mr. Braidwood was fair and his conclusions were reasonable, based on the evidence, said Mr. Justice Robert Sewell.

This is more than a defeat of an attempt (one of many) by the litigious Taser to silence its critics. It's an affirmation of Mr. Braidwood's thorough analysis of the dangers of the 50,000-volt gun.

Before Mr. Braidwood, the received wisdom among police forces in this country – received in part from Taser – was that the weapon does not kill. Police were therefore given wide latitude to use it. Just how wide, and to what deadly effect, was on view three years ago when an RCMP officer used a taser five times on Robert Dziekanski, an unarmed Polish immigrant distressed because he had been looking for his mother at the Vancouver International Airport for 10 hours, killing him and giving rise to the Braidwood inquiry.

The sections of the Braidwood report that Taser tried to quash are well worth reading. Taser claims the weapon has saved countless lives. If that were true, Mr. Braidwood asked, have deaths in custody fallen? No, they are higher, in B.C. and in a U.S. study, since the taser's introduction.

Every provincial solicitor-general, police board and police chief in the country should know what Taser International did not want them to know: that the taser has fatal risks, according to Mr. Braidwood's fair-minded review of the best available research. They should therefore restrict its use to situations involving a risk of serious physical harm to the police or public.

Judge dismisses Taser's suit to stop release of safety report

August 13, 2010
John Yantis, Arizona Republic

A Canadian judge has ruled against Scottsdale-based Taser International Inc. in its attempts to quash a government report that said its stun guns can cause death.

A British Columbia Supreme Court judge this week dismissed Taser's arguments that the Canadian report was biased, based on speculation and ignored facts about the safety of its stun guns. The company also had argued that it should have been able to review the report's findings before they were released publicly.


"It is quite clear to me that there were presentations made to the (inquiry) commissioner by medical experts and others to the effect that such weapons can cause serious harm and even death in exceptional circumstances," Judge Robert Sewell wrote.

In August 2009, Taser filed suit in Canada blasting the Braidwood Inquiry, the name of the government's report. The report, which took 18 months to research and was released in July 2009, was headed by retired Judge Thomas Braidwood.

It was sparked by the 2007 death of a Polish immigrant at Vancouver International Airport. He stopped breathing after being shocked five times by Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers.

Braidwood was tasked by the provincial government with looking into Taser use in the province, where Tasers were introduced in Canada. Braidwood also was asked to provide a complete record of the circumstances surrounding the death.

Taser spokesman Steve Tuttle called the ruling disappointing but said it clarified that the findings of the commission have no precedential value because it was "purely advisory." The Braidwood Study Commission did not make any findings of fault or misconduct, he said.

"We found it unfortunate that the Braidwood Study Commission conducted hearings for more than a year during which it was in possession of autopsy reports that cleared the Taser device of responsibility as the cause of Robert Dziekanski's death," Tuttle said in a statement.

Pathologists in British Columbia concluded the stun gun did not directly cause but may have played a role in Dziekanski's death.

A report released in December 2008 said three pathologists concluded that Dziekanski, 41, succumbed to "sudden death following restraint" with no definite cause. The factors that might have contributed to his death were heart disease from alcohol abuse, agitated delirium, physical stress made worse by the Taser shocks, inability to breathe and alcohol withdrawal, the report said.

Tuttle said although many of the findings of the commission are consistent with the company's warnings and training materials, it is important that the safety of its devices was recognized.

"Indeed, the Study Commission Report recommended that Taser devices continue to be used in British Columbia and commented favorably on the advantages of using Taser devices in circumstances in which police would otherwise have been required to use other means of force," Tuttle said.

The ruling didn't faze the company's investors. From Tuesday, when the judgment became public, and Thursday, the stock price slipped 1.7 percent, to $3.99.

The 556-page report criticized law enforcement for putting the stun gun on the street with little or no independent testing and recommended restricting use of Tasers.

Within hours, the head of public safety in British Columbia adopted all 19 of Braidwood's recommendations, including a ban on Tasers in non-criminal situations or where there is not an imminent threat of bodily harm.

In its lawsuit, Taser said it provided more than 170 studies, periodicals and reports with respect to the safety of the device and use-of-force questions. It said all the information clearly indicates that, when the device is used properly, it does not cause heart attacks. Taser objected that the information never found its way into the report.

Braidwood gave Taser every opportunity to bring forward all information, scientific studies and other material that it considered relevant, Sewell said in his ruling.

He also said there is nothing in the report that "a fair-minded person would construe as an attack or criticism of Taser's reputation as a corporate citizen or its right to carry on business and market its products."

"It is important to remember that the Commissioner, despite many submissions made to him, recommended the continued use of conducted energy weapons and commented favourably on the advantages of using such weapons in circumstances in which the police would otherwise have been required to use other means of force," Sewell wrote.

Sewell said he did consider Taser Chairman Tom Smith's deposition that he has had to deal with the issues raised in the report in "virtually every meeting" he had with potential customers and customers since the report was released.

"However, I find this evidence to be of little assistance," the judge wrote. "It consists essentially of vague, self-serving statements totally lacking specificity."

MIA: blog.taser.com

I tried to visit Taser International's blog this morning to see if they had anything to say about yesterday's verdict in the BC Supreme Court, but all I got was: "This user has elected to delete their account and the content is no longer available."

Just saying.

Taser manufacturer admits danger in training material

In training material released earlier this year, Taser International quietly acknowledged that its conducted energy weapons can have a negative -- even fatal -- impact on humans.

In stark contrast to the company's stance in a petition filed in B.C. Supreme Court, the company training bulletin released May 1 warns that, "incapacitation involves risks that a person may get hurt or die."

Download the complete training bulletin here.

The training kit also suggests that, "risk of an ECD (electronic control device) application having a negative effect on a person's heart rate and/or rhythm is not zero."

The company cautions that Tasers could also increase the risk of death or serious injury for pregnant women, the elderly, small children, sick people or "low body-mass index (BMI) persons" -- i.e. skinny people.

Taser's training material was released two months before the company filed a petition asking that the findings of retired judge Thomas Braidwood's public inquiry into the weapons be thrown out.

In that complaint, the company had argued that Braidwood's conclusion that Tasers have the capacity to cause death was unreasonable, and unsupported by the medical evidence.

In July, the company's lawyer David Neave told reporters, "The medical science that has been produced, involving human research, has all pointed that way -- that the devices do not have the effect that the commissioner says that they did."

Taser's complaint was dismissed by Judge Robert Sewell on Tuesday.

"It is quite clear to me that there were presentations made to the commissioner by medical experts and others to the effect that such weapons can cause serious harm and even death in exceptional circumstances," Sewell wrote in his decision.

During an interview with CTV News following Sewell's decision, Braidwood read excerpts from Taser International's training manual acknowledging the dangers of its weapons.

"I don't know what I can say about that," he laughed. "They lost, and I'm happy. End of story."

With a report from CTV British Columbia's Peter Grainger

Report finding Tasers can kill will stand, judge rules

August 10, 2010
CTV/The Canadian Press

VANCOUVER — A judge has refused to quash an inquiry report that concluded Tasers are capable of causing death.

The maker of the conducted energy weapon had gone to court asking a judge to void the findings of the inquiry, which looked into the events surrounding the death of Robert Dziekanski.

But in a ruling released Tuesday, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Robert Sewell rejected Taser's request, saying the company's arguments hold "no merit."

Sewell said it's clear to him that the inquiry's commissioner, retired justice Thomas Braidwood, had carefully looked at the opinions of medical experts and his findings were reasonable.

"The petitioner's alternative argument before me was that the Study Commission Report's conclusion that conducted energy weapons have the capacity to cause death was patently unreasonable and unsupported by any credible evidence," Sewell said in the written ruling.

"I find no merit in this submission. It is quite clear to me that there were presentations made to the commissioner by medical experts and others to the effect that such weapons can cause serious harm and even death in exceptional circumstances."

Sewell also notes there is nothing in Braidwood's report "which a fair-minded person would construe as an attack or criticism of the petitioner's reputation."

Braidwood released a report on the weapons last year after the first of two sets of hearings following Dziekanski's death at Vancouver airport in October 2007. Dziekanski was repeatedly jolted with an RCMP Taser.

Braidwood concluded Tasers have the capacity to affect the heart and trigger a fatal heart arrhythmia. He said it was difficult to precisely quantify that risk, but he described it as low.

He also said police forces in B.C. should continue to have access to the weapon, but he said the benefits must be weighed against the risks and he called for restrictions on their use.

His recommendations were endorsed by the B.C. government and the RCMP.

Arizona-based Taser, which has a long history of litigation against any suggestion the stun guns are unsafe, said Braidwood treated the company unfairly and then reached conclusions that weren't supported by the facts.

Taser asked the court to throw out all of Braidwood's findings about safety and his subsequent recommendations, claiming he ignored dozens of medical studies provided by the company.

Braidwood said Tuesday he's pleased with the ruling.

"I read all the material carefully, as did my staff, and it was subject to discussion amongst us," he said in the interview.

"We feel that the conclusions we reached in the report were helpful to the administration of the conduct of the police."

Taser also argued in court that it should have had greater participation in the hearings and had a chance to review Braidwood's findings before they were made public.

A B.C. government lawyer said during the proceedings that Taser failed to prove Braidwood ignored any of the company's evidence and its participation was over and above what it was entitled to.

Sewell agreed.

"I can find nothing in the record which would suggest that the commissioner carried out the inquiry, the public forums and his investigation in a manner which was in any way inconsistent with his publicly stated intentions," he said in the ruling.

"In particular, it would appear that the commissioner gave the petitioner (Taser) every opportunity to bring forward all information, scientific studies and other material that the petitioner considered to be relevant and of importance to the commissioner's mandate."

Government lawyers also argued in court that a training document that was issued by Taser several months after Braidwood's report endorsed the inquiry's findings.

That document warned police officers to aim their stun guns away from the heart.

Taser said the training bulletin was only issued to protect the company from potential lawsuits and was not an admission the weapons are dangerous.

The bulletin warned of "a remote potential risk of cardiac effect."

One of the two brothers who founded the weapons manufacturer said in a court affidavit the training bulletin had been taken out of context.

"Taser has not and does not accept that the decisions in the report are supported by any medical evidence," Rick Smith said in the affidavit.

Instead, Smith said he told his staff to refer to "low," "extremely low" or "extremely unlikely" risks because he believed Braidwood's report opened the company up to new legal risks.

The province's lawyers suggested the document showed Taser already knew the weapons carry a small risk of death, but would rather keep that fact in the "fine print" of an obscure product warning rather than in the highly publicized findings of a public inquiry.

Taser's history of aggressively defending its weapons in court is well-documented.

Last year, the company sent out a news release boasting it had successfully won its 100th dismissal of a liability lawsuit.

However, the company cannot claim a perfect legal record. In 2008, a California jury ruled the weapon was at least partially responsible for the death of a man who died in police custody.

The company is quick to contact media organizations about stories on deaths that may be linked to use of their weapons, and when a state medical examiner in Ohio ruled that three men's deaths were in part caused by the effects of Tasers, the company sued.

Taser eventually won, and in May 2008, a judge ordered the medical examiner to delete any references in the autopsy findings that suggested the stun guns were to blame.

Braidwood's second report, examining Dziekanski's death in detail, was released in June.

That document chided the four RCMP officers involved in the man's death for using too much force and concluded the multiple Taser stuns likely played the greatest role in his death.

The RCMP publicly apologized to his mother and reached a confidential settlement that averted a civil case.

B.C.'s top court dismisses Taser challenge

August 10, 2010
CTV

The B.C. Supreme Court has dismissed a legal challenge by Taser International to overturn the findings of the Braidwood Inquiry. The company tried to argue the conclusion its weapons increase the risk of fatal heart failure.

Read the full report .

Taser International loses bid to quash Braidwood conclusions

August 10, 2010
Ian Bailey, Vancouver — Globe and Mail

Taser International has lost another bid to block the findings of the Braidwood Inquiry into the police use of tasers and the death of Robert Dziekanski

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Robert Sewell's ruling today comes after a hearing in which the Arizona-based manufacturer of taser weapons sought to quash the conclusion of inquiry head Thomas Braidwood that tasers could cause death or severe injury.

Mr. Braidwood’s inquiry looked into the October, 2007 death of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski at Vancouver International Airport. RCMP officers approaching Mr. Dziekanski after he began acting erratically, stunned him a number of times with a taser. Mr. Dziekanski died shortly after the confrontation.

Mr. Braidwood focused on two issues in his inquiry – the circumstances of Mr. Dziekanski’s death and the police use of stun guns.

“I have concluded that the Study Commission fully discharged any duty of fairness which it owed to the petitioner with respect to the conduct of the mandate and with regard to its decision-making process,” Justice Sewell said in a ruling released Tuesday.

Justice Sewell said it's clear to him that the inquiry's commissioner, retired justice Thomas Braidwood, had carefully looked at the opinions of medical experts and his findings were reasonable.

Mr. Braidwood's explosive report rejected Taser's claims that its product does not cause death, a finding that Taser said was unfair and should not be allowed to stand.

Taser lawyers argued in court that the company did not have a chance to see the report before it was released and that the conclusions were not supported by the facts.

With a report from The Canadian Press

Top court upholds damages for charter breaches

July 23, 2010
CBC News

The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld $5,000 in damages against British Columbia for breaching the charter rights of a Vancouver lawyer strip-searched by police who wrongly thought he was going to throw a pie at Jean Chrétien.

However, in the unanimous landmark ruling Friday, the top court set aside damages of $100 against the City of Vancouver stemming from the seizure of lawyer Alan Cameron Ward's car.

The ruling means that people whose rights have been infringed can seek damages even if they suffered no actual loss and even if the authorities acted in good faith.

Ward was arrested in August 2002, when Vancouver officers thought he was going to throw a pie at Chrétien, then prime minister.

Police placed Ward in handcuffs and escorted him to a police van. A cameraman from a local TV station filmed the arrest, and the footage was later broadcast on the evening news.

Ward was well known within the court system and had built a respected career representing people who have accused police of misconduct, often for free.

He spent several hours in jail and, despite his objections, was strip-searched. He sued both the province and the city.

In an interview with CBC News, Ward said Friday he was relieved that his "eight-year odyssey is finally over" and was pleased with the decision.

'Charter rights really have some meaning'

"It is an important decision that makes it clear that charter rights really have some meaning, and in certain cases when they're violated people can recover a meaningful remedy."

The decision may have application in a variety of contexts, Ward added.

"Recently we've all heard about the G20 arrests, and if people are able to prove that they were wrongly detained or arrested or in some cases perhaps even strip-searched, they may be able to recover monetary compensation, which would also act as a deterrence in certain cases. It may also have application, for example, to people who were wrongly convicted and have faced terms of imprisonment."

Ward recalled the day he was arrested as "very upsetting."

He said he had been willing to settle the whole matter with an acknowledgement by the authorities of a mistake and an apology. Instead the province and city "dug in their heels," Ward said. "They must have spent … hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and legal time fighting this case over the last eight years."

Ward said he is grateful for the top court decision, and it is sufficient in lieu of an apology now.

Officers said they thought Ward was going to throw a pie at then prime minister Jean Chrétien, pictured above, in 2002. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)
In the ruling, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote that the strip search violated Ward's charter rights, and compensation was required.

Strip searches 'degrading'

"Strip searches are inherently humiliating and degrading and the charter breach significantly impacted on [Ward's] person and rights. The correction officers’ conduct which caused the breach was also serious," McLachlin wrote.

"With respect to the seizure of the car … the object of compensation is not engaged as [Ward] did not suffer any injury as a result of the seizure."

In January 2007, B.C. Supreme Court judge ruled Ward's charter rights were infringed for wrongful imprisonment, the strip search and the unreasonable search of his vehicle.

The court ordered the province to pay him $5,000 for the strip search and Vancouver to pay for wrongful imprisonment and the unreasonable seizure of his vehicle.

The B.C. Court of Appeal refused to overturn the award, saying the strip search "amounted to a significant charter breach."

The city and the B.C. government appealed the damages to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Lawyers refute Taser firm’s inquiry challenge

July 10, 2010
By TAMSYN BURGMANN The Canadian Press

VANCOUVER — Taser International’s legal challenge of the Braidwood commission is not only baseless, but an abuse of process, a provincial government lawyer told a B.C. Supreme Court judge Friday.

Lawyer Craig Jones said the petition by Taser was such a "waste of precious judicial resources" that he may be making the unusual request for the court to award legal costs to the provincial government.

The weapons maker is "manipulating the courts" by saying its stun gun holds no risk of death in Canada, while asserting the reverse in the United States, Jones said in a written submission to the judge.

Earlier in the week, government lawyers pointed to a Taser training bulletin that recommends users aim the device away from the heart to "avoid the remote potential risk of cardiac effect."

But Taser countered that it has never admitted the weapons are dangerous, and that the phrase was simply inserted to prevent potential lawsuits.

Jones alleges the Arizona-based company changes its position to suit its local litigation needs.

"The Braidwood Report is making life difficult for Taser — it finds itself legally compelled to admit to risks it continues to deny in other contexts," the submission states.

"If it can get the report quashed on technical grounds related to procedural fairness its litigation strategy internationally will be advanced and its marketing efforts protected."

Taser is petitioning B.C. Supreme Court to throw out the portion of Commissioner Thomas Braidwood’s report about the safety of the stun guns.

The retired judge concluded the weapons can kill.

The public inquiry was called in the months after Robert Dziekanski was repeatedly jolted by an RCMP Taser and died on the floor of the Vancouver airport.

Braidwood commission lawyers refute Taser challenge

July 9, 2010
The Canadian Press

VANCOUVER — Lawyers for the B.C. government say weapon's maker Taser International's legal action against its commission is baseless and an abuse of process.

In a written submission to the court, government lawyer Craig Jones, says Taser is "manipulating the courts" by saying its stun gun holds no risk of death in Canada, while asserting the reverse in the United States.

Taser wants a B.C. Supreme Court judge throw out the part of Commissioner Thomas Braidwood's report that concludes the weapons can kill.

Braidwood's inquiry was called in the months after Robert Dziekanski was jolted by an RCMP Taser and died on the floor of the Vancouver airport.

Lawyers for the Arizona-based company and province wrapped their arguments Friday before Judge Robert Sewell, who reserved his ruling without giving a date for his decision.

Taser maker denies weapon poses risk for the heart

Taser International says a training document that appears to suggest its weapons pose a risk to the heart has been taken out of context.

The document was raised by B.C. government lawyers during Taser's legal challenge of a public inquiry report that suggested the weapons can kill.

A lawyer for the provincial attorney general says the training bulletin, issued two months after the report, amounts to an admission by Taser that its weapons pose a small risk -- effectively confirming what commissioner Thomas Braidwood concluded.
But in an affidavit filed with the court, co-founder Rick Smith says the bulletin was only designed to protect the company from potential lawsuits.

Smith says it was not an admission Tasers can affect the heart, despite the fact that the document recommends officers aim away from the heart because of a "remote potential risk of cardiac effect."

Taser wants the B.C. Supreme Court to throw out parts of a report released last year from the first set of hearings prompted by Robert Dziekanski's death at Vancouver's airport.

Manufacturer's 'fine print' on Taser's risks backs Braidwood

July 8, 2010
Keith Fraser, The Province

A B. C. government lawyer argued in court Wednesday that a training directive by Taser International undermines the company's argument that the Braidwood inquiry reached a faulty conclusion about the lethality of Tasers.

Craig Jones, representing the attorney-general's ministry, told B.C. Supreme Court Justice Robert Sewell that the September 2009 directive contains information that is in line with Braidwood's conclusion that the risk of Tasers causing death is low -- but nonetheless does exist.

"If you accept the risk of death by cardiac effect . . . then you agree with what Commissioner Braidwood found," Jones said.

Taser International Inc. "looked at the hard evidence and they came to exactly the same conclusion [as Braidwood]," he said.

The directive, released just two months after Braidwood's first report, is entitled "TASER Training Bulletin 15.0, Medical Research Update and Revised Warnings."

Jones said the bulletin went even farther than Braidwood in recommending how it should be deployed against human beings. "Aiming away from the heart was not among the commissioner's recommendations, though he recognized its value in training situations."

The government lawyer questioned why Taser is pressing its case if it doesn't disagree with the commissioner.

"It's hard to say why. Perhaps it is because Commissioner Braidwood's views were clear, plainspoken and widely and prominently disseminated, where Taser's own indistinguishable conclusion . . . is tucked away among fine print," Jones said.

The Taser admission renders the petition "futile" and thus unsuitable for judicial review, he argued.

Patrick McGowan, a lawyer for the commissioner, told the judge his role was "somewhat limited" but that he had lengthy submissions to make.

He argued that Taser's claims were based on a history of events that was "somewhat misconstrued" and "incomplete" and "the court is left with a potentially distorted and misleading context."

McGowan is expected to continue his submissions today. Taser International has filed a petition seeking to quash the findings in the Braidwood report. Earlier this week, the company's lawyer argued in court that its reputation was harmed by the Braidwood report and that its bottom line was negatively impacted.

Thomas Braidwood, a former judge, conducted two commissions of inquiry after the October 2007 death of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski at Vancouver International Airport.

Dziekanski died shortly after being Tasered five times by RCMP.

Inquiry only confirmed Taser's own warnings about weapon's risk, British Columbia argues

July 7, 2010
James Keller, Vancouver — The Canadian Press
The Globe and Mail

A public inquiry report that concluded a Taser jolt carries a small risk of death is entirely supported by the evidence and is actually confirmed by the “fine print” the company now attaches to its weapons, the B.C. government argued Tuesday as it defended the inquiry's findings in court.

Taser International is challenging the first report into the death of Robert Dziekanski, arguing commissioner Thomas Braidwood treated the company unfairly and then reached conclusions that weren't supported by the facts.

But a lawyer for B.C.’s attorney-general told a judge Tuesday the conclusion that a shock from a Taser has the capacity to affect the heart is confirmed by a training bulletin issued by the company last September — two months after the report's release.

The document, which received wide media coverage and prompted police forces across Canada to adjust their policies, recommended the devices be aimed away from the heart to “avoid the remote potential risk of cardiac effect.”

“This is what Taser says in the fine print,” B.C. government lawyer Craig Jones told a B.C. Supreme Court judge.

“And I'll show you that it's virtually identical to what commissioner Braidwood said. The difference is that commissioner Braidwood said it in plain spoken language and broadcast [it] more loudly.”

Mr. Braidwood's report, released last year, was the first of two from a public inquiry called after Mr. Dziekanski's death in October 2007, when he was confronted by RCMP officers at Vancouver's airport and stunned several times with a Taser.

Mr. Braidwood heard presentations in 2008 during several weeks of hearings examining the use of Tasers in B.C. and their safety.

In the end, he concluded a jolt from a Taser has the capacity to kill a person by causing a fatal heart arrhythmia, particularly when the weapon is used multiple times.

The report prompted Taser to ask a court to throw out all of Mr. Braidwood's findings about the safety of the stun guns and his subsequent recommendations, claiming the retired judge ignored dozens of medical studies provided by the company.

Taser also argues it should have had greater participation in the hearings and had a chance to review Mr. Braidwood's findings and respond before they were made public.

On Tuesday, Mr. Jones only spent a few minutes speaking to the judge before court finished for the day, but in written submissions, he rejected all of Taser's arguments.

Taser failed to prove Mr. Braidwood ignored any of the company's evidence, wrote Mr. Jones, and Taser's extensive participation was over and above what it was entitled to.

“The courtesies and accommodations extended to Taser — which was, in sheer volume of submissions, easily the most-prominent presenter — were extraordinary,” wrote Mr. Jones .

“For Taser to now [claim it wasn't afforded enough rights] seems not only wildly inappropriate legally speaking, but also incongruous with all the facts Taser itself asserts.”

Earlier in the day, the judge in the case asked Taser why its extensive involvement in the hearings wasn't enough to defend the stun gun.

Judge Robert Sewell noted the company's co-founder and several of its own experts appeared before the hearings in 2008, and they would have known other presenters had told Mr. Braidwood that Tasers pose safety risks.

“The petitioner in this case was well aware that one of the subject matters of the inquiry was the safety of Tasers, and, in fact, the petitioner in this case was given ample opportunity to appear before the commission and make submissions with respect to that question,” Judge Sewell told Taser lawyer David Neave.

“Wasn't he [Taser co-founder Thomas Smith] aware that presenters had made presentations to the commissioner that there was some indication [that Tasers could cause death]?”

The company couldn't have predicted Mr. Braidwood would conclude Tasers could be fatal because, Mr. Neave replied, none of the evidence presented at the inquiry supported that finding.

“Taser had no basis to believe that the commissioner would reach those findings,” said Mr. Neave. “Taser was entitled to notice.”

Taser claims the report has hurt its business around the world, citing it as the reason the company lost a multimillion-dollar contract in Africa earlier this year.

Mr. Braidwood's second report, examining Mr. Dziekanski's death in detail, was released last month.

That document chided the four RCMP officers involved in the man's death for using too much force and concluded the multiple Taser stuns likely played the greatest role in his death.

Canadian inquiry's Taser warning defended in court

July 6, 2010
Allan Dowd, Reuters

VANCOUVER (Reuters) - TASER International Inc issued the same safety warning about its stun guns as did a British Columbia inquiry, government lawyers said on Tuesday in urging a court to reject the company's bid to quash the findings.

The inquiry was launched after a Polish immigrant died in Vancouver's airport in 2007 after police shot him with a stun gun multiple times. The exact cause of his death has not been determined.

The inquiry's report warned that the weapons could be lethal, but Taser disputed the finding and said it had ignored evidence.

The U.S.-based company, however, included the safety warning in a product bulletin to police three months after inquiry commissioner Thomas Braidwood issued his report, provincial lawyer Craig Jones told the B.C. Supreme Court.

"The difference, I suppose, is that commissioner Braidwood did it in plain language, and it was broadcast more widely," Jones told British Columbia Supreme Court Judge Robert Sewell.

Taser's attorney told the court in Vancouver earlier on Tuesday that Braidwood's report had caused concern with customers around the world and it was hurting potential sales.

The guns, also known as conducted energy weapons, are designed to disable a target with a jolt of up to 50,000 volts of electricity. They are marketed largely to police but can also be bought by the public in the United States.

The weapon's supporters say it is a needed alternative to firearms, but critics say not enough independent safety testing has been done on the potential for the jolt to cause a human heart to suddenly fail.

Braidwood's report declined to order a ban or moratorium on the weapon, but it recommended police restrict when and how it was deployed until more medical studies were done.

Taser's 2009 bulletin also recommended police shoot the weapon's electricity-deploying darts at a person's back rather the chest, and avoid aiming for near the heart, government lawyers said.

Taser participated in the provincial inquiry and supplied witnesses, but it has told the court its right to fairness was violated when it was not allowed to challenge the findings before they were made public.

Government attorneys told the court Taser did not have any special rights in the case, adding that if its reputation had been damaged it was because of "scientific reality" and not because of the inquiry's actions.

Judge questions why presence at inquiry not enough for Taser to defend weapons

July 6, 2010
James Keller, The Canadian Press

VANCOUVER - The judge overseeing Taser International's challenge of a B.C. public inquiry that concluded the weapons can kill wondered why Taser thinks its extensive involvement in the hearings wasn't enough to defend the stun gun.

The U.S.-based weapons manufacturer is challenging the first report into the death of Robert Dziekanski, arguing it was unfair for commissioner Thomas Braidwood to release his findings without first letting Taser know about his conclusions and allowing the company to respond.

On Tuesday, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Robert Sewell noted the company's co-founder and several of its own experts appeared before the hearings in 2008, and they would have known other presenters had told Braidwood that Tasers pose safety risks.

"The petitioner in this case was well aware that one of the subject matters of the inquiry was the safety of Tasers, and, in fact, the petitioner in this case was given ample opportunity to appear before the commission and make submissions with respect to that question," Sewell told Taser lawyer David Neave.

"Wasn't he (Taser co-founder Thomas Smith) aware that presenters had made presentations to the commissioner that there was some indication (that Tasers could cause death)?"

The company couldn't have predicted Braidwood would conclude Tasers could be fatal because, Neave replied, none of the evidence presented at the inquiry supported that finding.

"Taser had no basis to believe that the commissioner would reach those findings," said Neave. "Taser was entitled to notice."

The report, released last year, was the first of two from a public inquiry called after Dziekanski's death in October 2007, when he was confronted by RCMP officers at Vancouver's airport and stunned with a Taser.

Commissioner Thomas Braidwood heard presentations in 2008 during several weeks of hearings examining the use of Tasers in B.C. and their safety.

In the end, he concluded a jolt from a Taser has the capacity to kill a person by causing a fatal heart arrhythmia, particularly when the weapon is used multiple times, and he called for restrictions on their use.

He also raised questions about the methodology and reliability of some of the studies and statistics provided by Taser as the company argued the weapons pose no risk to the heart.

Taser's petition argues Braidwood made his conclusion without any evidence to support it and the company claims Braidwood failed to take into account all of the studies and material it provided.

The company also complains it wasn't granted official standing at the hearings and it wasn't allowed to review the findings before they were released.

The provincial government's lawyers are expected to argue the court has no jurisdiction to review Braidwood's report because a study commission can only make non-binding recommendations and it can't allege fault or wrongdoing.

They'll also say Braidwood read all of the company's submissions, even if he didn't cite them all.

The provincial government and the RCMP quickly endorsed Braidwood's report and have since restricted the use of Tasers.

Taser claims the report has hurt its business around the world, citing it as the reason the company lost a multimillion-dollar contract in Africa earlier this year.

Braidwood's second report, examining Dziekanski's death in detail, was released last month.

That document chided the four RCMP officers involved in the man's death for using too much force and concluded the multiple Taser stuns likely played the greatest role in his death

Taser maker fights inquiry conclusion that stun gun can kill

July 6, 2010
By Petti Fong, Toronto Star

Taser International says its bottom line is hurting and its reputation has been slurred in the wake of a provincial public inquiry report that concluded the weapon can cause death.

In a court application Monday to the B.C. Supreme Court, Taser asked that a judge quash the findings of the Braidwood Commission.

The commission, led by retired judge Thomas Braidwood, released its report late last month following a two-part inquiry into the death of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski at Vancouver International Airport on Oct. 14, 2007.

Dziekanski, 40, died after RCMP officers shot him five times in the chest with a Taser weapon.

David Neave, a lawyer for the U.S. manufacturer, told Judge Robert Sewell on Monday that Taser is concerned about Braidwood’s conclusion that the weapon can cause death.

“It’s a slur on Taser that its device can kill,” Neave said. “That’s a slur that ought to be removed.”

Sewell noted the commission had concluded the “harm this product could cause carries with it a low risk of death.” However, Neave said there is no medical or scientific evidence to support that the weapon has caused any deaths.

Sewell challenged Neave further and said use of the weapon, if carried out by anyone other than police officers, could be considered assault causing bodily harm. “This product is designed to cause harm,” the judge said.

Neave rejected that. “It’s designed to incapacitate,” he said. “Certainly there is a pain component associated.”

The company is asking that all findings regarding the weapon’s safety be removed from the report on the grounds that Braid failed to forewarn Taser of his conclusions and did not give the company a chance to refute his conclusion about the weapon.

Braidwood, a former B.C. Supreme court justice, was asked by the provincial government to hold a two-part inquiry following public outrage over the death of Dziekanski, whose 30-second interaction with RCMP officers at an airport arrivals lounge and the quick deployment of a Taser were captured on video by a bystander, later seen by hundreds of thousands of viewers after it was publicly posted.

The Polish government is demanding charges be laid against the four RCMP officers but an earlier investigation by the RCMP found a conviction was unlikely and no charges were laid.

After Braidwood’s report came out in June, which included findings that the officers ‘ conduct was shameful and their testimony unreliable, a special prosecutor concluded last week the investigation should be reopened.

Taser, which took part in the inquiry, provided the commission with 174 articles it said prove the weapon cannot be linked to any deaths. Neave said the commissioner referred to only 60 of those articles in his findings.

Neave said the company has cooperated fully with the inquiry but its CEO, during his testimony before the commission, was treated as an adversary under cross-examination by the commission’s lawyer.

The commission heard that 300 deaths in the U.S. and nearly 30 in Canada have had links to Tasers.

“People have been dying in police custody for hundreds and hundreds of years,” said Neave, and there is no evidence a Taser either caused or contributed to any of the deaths associated with the weapon.

The Scottsdale, Ariz.-based company has been spending internal resources on addressing the issue to its clients, said Neave, and the company’s CEO has attributed the loss of one potential contract worth tens of millions to an African client to the findings by the provincial commissioner.

“There has been a negative impact from the decisions in the report . . . an economic backlash,” Neave said.

The B.C. government is expected to respond Tuesday that the inquiry’s findings are not subject to judicial review and there was no obligation to provide Taser with an opportunity to respond to the commissioner’s conclusion.

When he released his report last month, Braidwood seemed to dismiss Taser’s claim.

“I read all their material. I read everything,” he said. “That doesn’t mean I’m going to put it all in. Let me just say I disagreed with them.”

Taser International, in court proceedings in the U.S., has vigorously challenged any suggestions its weapons cause bodily harm or death. In 2008, the company successfully petitioned a judge in Ohio to order autopsy reports for three men rewritten after a medical examiner made reference to the Taser in association with the men’s death. The men died in confrontations with police.

The trial is expected to take five days.

Mountie’s drunk driving case shifts into total absurdity

December 2, 2009
Gary Mason, Globe and Mail

She could tell you about the pain she deals with – the excruciating reminders of her son Orion's too-short life that she confronts virtually every day. But for now, Judith Hutchinson prefers to keep it to herself.

“Nothing can repair our pain or replace our loss,” Ms. Hutchinson said, speaking for herself and daughter, Daria.

“We can only hope and pray that this case plays out in a way that demands some accountability and brings some justice.”

Yes, this case. This increasingly disturbing case.

Ms. Hutchinson's son died on Oct. 25, 2008. Orion, 21, was driving his motorcycle in the Vancouver suburb of Tsawwassen when he was struck by a vehicle driven by one Monty Robinson. And if the name sounds familiar, it should.

He is RCMP Corporal Benjamin Robinson, the officer in charge during a Mountie takedown of Robert Dziekanski at Vancouver airport in October, 2007, that ended in the Polish immigrant's death.

Cpl. Robinson was off duty when he plowed into Mr. Hutchinson. He blew over the limit when police tested him for alcohol consumption less than two hours after the accident.

Delta police handled the investigation. A matter that is often completed in days when it involves a civilian dragged on for seven months. In June, 2009, the municipal police department recommended charges of impaired and dangerous driving causing death.

But that wasn't the end of it.

The police report was turned over to the criminal justice branch of the Attorney-General's Ministry. And it would be months again before a decision on whether to go ahead with charges was reached. On Tuesday, the Crown decided against charging Cpl. Robinson with impaired driving, but recommended pressing forward with the lesser charge of attempting to obstruct justice.

No reasons were given. No justification for what surely is a head-scratcher given that police felt there was evidence to charge Mr. Robinson with driving while under the influence. Not only that, but the Crown decision also ignored a related judgment made in the Supreme Court of B.C. earlier this year.

Mr. Justice Mark McEwan dismissed a petition by Cpl. Robinson to have the suspension of his driver's licence lifted. (Yes, three days after the accident Mr. Robinson appealed the suspension of his license). The judge looked at all the facts and didn't believe the Mountie's story. Oh, yes, the story. We almost forgot.

Mr. Robinson told police he likely blew over the limit because he left the scene of the accident for 10 minutes to walk his children home. This before police arrived. At home, he said, he downed two shots of vodka. He maintained he had only two beers at a party before the accident.

But the officers at the scene said Mr. Robinson's eyes were bloodshot, pupils dilated and his speech slurred. The judge didn't believe that could have been the result of two shots of vodka 10 minutes earlier. The judge said there wasn't even any evidence that he'd gone home and couldn't imagine him doing so when a young man was dying on the ground.

Obviously, this is a sensitive case because it involves not only an RCMP officer but one at the centre of the Dziekanski case. If the Crown wanted to overturn the recommendations of a police investigation and disregard the observations of a Supreme Court justice it was certainly within its rights to do so. But it also had an obligation to justify itself.

The Crown handles potentially explosive cases all the time. And when it makes a decision on charges, it usually releases an explanatory report. It didn't in this case, saying the matter is before the courts.

This appears to be complete and utter nonsense.

Releasing the report would not have compromised any trial. But it would have meant the Justice Department would have had to reveal why it bought Mr. Robinson's two-shots-of-vodka story when others didn't.

I'm hoping there is another reason the Crown didn't release its full report. One that it can't talk about now.

When this case gets to court, which could take years at the rate it's been travelling, Mr. Robinson could be found guilty of obstruction of justice. The Crown refuses to say what that charge stems from but it usually implies some effort to interfere with or influence an investigation.

A conviction, however, is unlikely to lead to much more than a fine and probation.

As for the accountability and justice that Judith Hutchinson is looking for, at the moment that appears very much in doubt.

Vancouver airport denies any responsibility in Dziekanski's death

December 1, 2009
The Canadian Press

VANCOUVER, B.C. — Vancouver International Airport has denied any responsibility for the death of Robert Dziekanski in a statement of defence to a lawsuit filed by his mother.

Dziekanski died at the airport in October 2007 after four RCMP officers stunned him with a Taser, and his mother is now suing the officers, the airport and the federal and provincial governments.

Zofia Cisowski alleges airport staff failed Dziekanski by not helping him when he became agitated in the international arrivals area, not calling a translator and not calling in airport firefighters after he was stunned.

In a statement of defence filed in B.C. Supreme Court, the airport denies any responsibility and insists its staff used good judgment and followed their training in dealing with the Polish immigrant.

The document says the airport could not have foreseen what happened.

The airport faced intense criticism after Dziekanski's death and has made numerous changes in the aftermath, including improved translation services, more signs in different languages and increased patrols to find passengers who are lost or in distress.

Prosecutors drag feet on whether to charge cop in biker's death

November 18, 2009
Ian Mulgrew, Vancouver Sun

B.C. prosecutors continue dithering five months after Delta police recommended they charge Cpl. Benjamin Monty Robinson, the most senior Mountie in the Dziekanski Tasering, with killing a motorcyclist a year later while driving drunk.

The criminal justice branch took more than a year to decide not to charge the four officers in the death of Robert Dziekanski at Vancouver Airport Oct. 14, 2007.

Now the branch is taking an inappropriately long time dealing with a horrific Oct. 25, 2008 Tsawwassen accident involving Robinson, the most experienced of the disgraced quartet.

The interminable chronology is a serious indictment of what should be an impartial process. It raises questions about the relationship between prosecutors and the officers they rely on daily in every criminal trial.

Think Stockholm syndrome.

In the high-profile Tsawwassen case, Delta police came under fire for dragging their feet after scheduled court dates were delayed and a decision on charges failed to materialize.

Finally, in June -- eight months after the fatal collision at the intersection of Gilchrist Drive and Sixth Avenue -- they submitted a report to prosecutors recommending Robinson be charged with impaired driving and dangerous driving causing death.

The crash occurred about 10:30 p.m. and Robinson gave breath samples at 11:56 p.m. and 12:16 a.m. that read .12 and .10. The legal limit is .08.

Neil MacKenzie, a spokesman for the criminal justice branch, said in June that the Crown's review should be completed within a month.

The silence since has been deafening.

Following the crash, the motor vehicle branch suspended Robinson's driver's licence for 90 days and he tried unsuccessfully to appeal it.

The brazen Mountie lamely argued in B.C. Supreme Court that an adjudicator didn't properly consider his excuse -- that he left the debris-strewn scene of the collision, had two shots of vodka, and returned. That's why he blew over the limit.

Orion Hutchinson, a 21-year-old recent graduate of BCIT looking forward to a new job, lay dying on the road and Robinson says he went home for quick drink?

Consider that Kurtis Rock, 18, was in the prisoner's dock facing eight charges three days after the Feb. 7 hit-and-run that killed Dr. Aneez Mohammed and Chanelle Morgan near the entrance to Granville Island.

Three days compared to more than a year and counting; one case involving a common citizen, the other a Mountie. Gee, I wonder why people are losing faith in the legal system?

Although the criminal justice branch decided last Dec. 12 not to charge any of the Mounties in connection with Dziekanski's death, testimony this year at the public inquiry into the incident raised serious questions about the integrity of the RCMP investigation and the veracity of the officers -- including Robinson.

There have been calls for the attorney-general to reconsider laying criminal charges against them and the government of Poland is apparently mulling a prosecution.

Inquiry commissioner Thomas Braidwood is writing his final report on the 40-year-old Polish immigrant's death and is expected to deliver it early next year.

But all of that has nothing to do with the death of Hutchinson.

More than a year after a none-too-complicated accident -- almost six months after even the cops said their colleague should be put on trial -- supposedly disinterested prosecutors have been unable to figure out whether to lay charges.

A criminal justice branch spokesman said Tuesday a decision will come soon.

Attorney-General Mike de Jong should be ashamed. Either his prosecutors are incompetent or so overworked they can't get the important jobs done.

There is no reason charges could be laid against Rock but no decision made in Robinson's case for this length of time.

It is a travesty for the family of a young man who died with everything before him and also for a besieged officer who deserves to be either exonerated or convicted and fired.

The RCMP suspended Robinson with pay following Hutchinson's death.

Officers appeal misconduct decision in Taser inquiry

June 20, 2009
The Canadian Press/CTV

VANCOUVER -- The RCMP officers involved in Robert Dziekanski's death are appealing a court decision that allows a public inquiry to make findings of misconduct against them.

The four Mounties challenged Commissioner Thomas Braidwood's authority to allege misconduct against officers on the federal police force -- something the commissioner has warned he'll consider when he writes his final report.

But a B.C. Supreme Court judge dismissed their claims, and now the officers are taking the case to the B.C. Court of Appeal.

A lawyer for the officer who fired the Taser, Const. Kwesi Millington, has already filed his appeal and the others are expected to follow.

David Butcher, who represents Const. Bill Bentley, says the case raises important constitutional questions about such a provincial inquiry's authority over federal police officers.

Prosecutors in B.C. decided last year not to charge the officers but Braidwood is considering a number of allegations made during the inquiry, including that they lied about what happened at the airport that day.

The inquiry is currently on hold until September as lawyers investigate an internal RCMP email that surfaced earlier this month that raised questions about the officers' testimony.