[projekktor id=’17248′]
A Toronto man was appealing his conviction on a gun offence before Ontario’s top court today. Lawyers for Richard Steele say his trial judge erred in failing to properly consider evidence of racial profiling in finding him guilty.
Steele has already served a full sentence and was in court Tuesday. He was convicted in 2010 of concealing a loaded handgun under the front passenger seat of his mother’s car after being pulled over in Hamilton.
His lawyer argued Tuesday that police didn’t have the proper basis to stop and search the car and there may have been subconscious racial stereotyping taking place that the trail judge didn’t properly consider.
There were four black men in the car and some of the arguments today focused on whether the officer was able to identify them before she pulled the vehicle over.
Steele’s lawyer also argued that the gun the officer found should have been exluded as evidence because she conducted an improper search and didn’t meet the law’s requirement of proper consent when she offered to help search for insurance documents under Steele’s seat where the gun was found.
Anthony Moustacalis, Steele’s lawyer: “Our argument was two-fold. It was one, that the officers evidence wasn’t clear on the fact that she was not able to see and alternatively, when she was able to see, she proceeded to get a consent which we are not fully informed and may have been based on some stereotypical reasoning. But I think that it bears saying on her side that the judge didn’t find that. But our argument was that the trial judge ought to have considered a sub-conscious act.”
Kingsley Gilliam, Black Action Defense Committee: “The Black Action Defense Committee has launched three class-action lawsuits against police forces. We have one against Toronto, one against Peel and one against Durham for racial profiling. So this case is pivotal in the whole bullwork of things to address this current in our society about police racial profiling. It is significant.”
The crown declined to comment on camera but argued in court that racial profiling had nothing to do with the incident, and the officer’s behaviour was not unusual or racist.
The judge’s are expected to make a decision within about 3 months.
