Ex-Toronto cop appeals conviction for massage worker sex assault

[Sweet Emily J 172062]

[B][U]Ex-Toronto cop appeals conviction for massage worker sex assault[/U][/B]

[I]Michele Mandel | Tuesday December 9 - 9:12 PM[/I]

[URL="http://m.torontosun.com/2014/12/09/toronto-cop-appeals-conviction-for-massage-worker-sex-assault"]http://m.torontosun.com/2014/12/09/toronto-cop-appeals-conviction-for-massage-worker-sex-assault[/URL]

[QUOTE]More than four years after sexually assaulting a frightened massage worker, former Toronto cop Mandip Sandhu was back in court trying to appeal his conviction and his unusually tough jail sentence.

Because no police officer wants to take his chances in prison.

Sandhu had offered a novel defence when he went on trial â?? even though it was common police practice to work as pairs, the then 37-year-old was conducting a solo bylaw inspection of a North York spa in June 2010 when [B]the immigrant massage worker fellated him against his will.[/B]

And despite his badge, his gun and his bigger size, Sandhu didnâ??t manage to stop her. He was shocked, he said. â??I was not expecting anything like that to happen. But I did nothing to stop it. It was a lapse in judgment.â?

But Ontario Court Judge John Moore believed the victimâ??s more credible story: That Sandhu had recorded her name and information in his police memo book to intimidate her and then forced her to perform oral sex. The compelling evidence against him was not only her testimony, but his DNA found in the semen she had spit into a washcloth and the notes found in his office drawer at 31 Division where her name, date of birth and home address had been written and then crossed out.

â??To suggest that (Sandhu), a 12-year veteran who is larger, stronger, armed, a police officer while on duty and in the lawful execution of that duty is somehow rendered helpless and hopeless in the hands of (the massage worker) defies the boundaries of common sense and credulity. The suggestion is preposterous, ludicrous and beyond belief,â? Moore said in his reasons for judgment in February 2013.

Sentenced in June 2013 to 15 months imprisonment, Sandhu has been free on bail pending his appeal.

Sitting with several supporters, he listened intently as his lawyer, Alan Gold, pleaded his case: That the trial judge should not have admitted the evidence from his seized notebook because it violated his Charter right to privacy and his right against self-incrimination and were illegally handed over to the Special Investigations Unit.

And because the warrant to seize his DNA referenced the notebook, it should be thrown out as well, his lawyer told Superior Court Justice Brian Oâ??Marra.

The trial judge had ruled these werenâ??t really police notes but Sandhuâ??s way of intimidating his victim into performing the sex act and because they were â??a potential instrumentâ? of his crime, they werenâ??t protected under the Charter. Moore also found that while thereâ??s a police regulation that officers under investigation donâ??t have to turn their notes about the incident over to the SIU, these scratched out notations of her name and address didnâ??t fall within the definition of â??police notes.â?

Sandhuâ??s lawyer insisted the judge erred on both counts and his mistakes were â??so significantâ? that a new trial must be held. â??The judge didnâ??t do the best job of judging,â? Gold said. â??My client didnâ??t get the trial to which he was entitled.â?

Crown attorney John McInnes disagreed. Writing the victimâ??s name and address in his memo book canâ??t be classified as official police notes, he said, especially when it was followed by oral sex that was â??clearly not part of the duties of a police officer by any stretch.â?
Even if the judge refuses to quash his conviction or order a new trial, Sandhu wants to do his time in the community and not in jail.

His lawyer complained that his 15-month sentence is a harsh and excessive punishment given that he â??was dismissed from the police force and has no other skills, training or means of financially supporting his family,â? he and his family have suffered extreme public shame and humiliation, and he faces physical harm if heâ??s incarcerated.

But the prosecutor says house arrest just doesnâ??t go far enough to reflect societyâ??s interest in denunciation and deterrence. And heâ??s right â?? a police officer who breaches his position of authority to violate a vulnerable member of the public deserves to go where the other criminals go â?? and thatâ??s directly to jail.

Oâ??Marra has reserved his decision.
[/QUOTE]