A complaint filed against Calgary police officers for their role in the traumatic arrest of a Calgary man was not fully investigated but should have been, an inquiry heard Wednesday.
Godfred Addai-Nyamekye was violently arrested in December 2013. He submitted a complaint against several officers as a result. The 10-day inquiry is examining how that complaint was managed from intake to conclusion.
On Monday, Darren Leggatt, the inspector of the professional standards section at the time, testified at the hearing. The section investigates complaints against police officers.
Looking back, Leggatt said he believes the section did take Addai-Nyamekye’s complaint seriously.
But there are gaps, he said. In this case, they didn’t ensure that Addai-Nyamekye’s complaint was filed as he intended, including all the officers involved.
“The system may have failed in having too linear a definition or belief of what withdrawal was,” Leggatt said.
Leggatt said he believes the officers identified in the complaint — not by name, but by their choice to leave Addai-Nyamekye far from home and in the cold — should have been investigated.
Addai-Nyamekye testified that was his intent, but witnesses have walked through the process revealing an apparent miscommunication along the way.
Addai-Nyamekye had a confrontation with three officers early in the morning, a few days after Christmas Day in 2013, that ended with him having a cut lip and in the back of a police vehicle.
He was dropped off far from his home by officers — referred to in the hearing as the transport officers — in the middle of winter and wearing only light clothing.
The apparent miscommunication at the complaint intake stage kept those transport officers from being a part of the complaint.
Several Calgary Police Service members testified they believed the officers should have been investigated. Some testified about their frustration and individual efforts to have the officers investigated.
After a year, the officers could no longer be part of the complaint because of a policy time-barring them. But police service members like Leggatt said it should have been considered a part of the initial complaint. Police members have testified an internal investigation was shut down because it had been too long.
“I believe he raised it in time,” Leggatt testified about Addai-Nyamekye’s complaint about the transport officers.
However, Leggatt also believed the complaint against the transport officers was made but walked back.
Other members testified they were told from an agent operating on Addai-Nyamekye’s behalf that the complaint was meant to be lodged exclusively against Const. Trevor Lindsay.
After Addai-Nyamekye was dropped off by police, he called dispatch, complained and asked for help. Lindsay was the responding officer who arrested and beat Addai-Nyamekye at the scene, an incident that was caught on video.
Addai-Nyamekye was the first witness at the inquiry and testified last week that the experience prompted his post-traumatic stress disorder.
Police helicopter footage shows the violent arrest of Godfred Addai-Nyamekye in December, 2013.
Caitlin Dick, a director on the board of the Criminal Trial Lawyers’ Association, pressed Leggatt about the complaint being walked back, stating complaints that are withdrawn have to go through a formal process.
“If those steps are not taken, that means that, likely, that complaint was not withdrawn, correct?” she asked.
“I would agree with that,” Leggatt replied.
Dick also asked Leggatt about an email sent to colleagues that suggested the victim’s lawyer, Tom Engel, was trying to “trip up” the police force by sending in complaints to both the chief’s office and the professional standards section.
He agreed he could have worded the email differently, to avoid implying Engel had malicious intent by advocating for his client.
So far, in the past eight days of the hearing, police staff of various ranks have testified about their role in the investigation. The inquiry is scheduled for another two days in January. It has been adjourned until Jan. 17.
At its end, the board will have an opportunity to make recommendations to prevent similar issues from happening in the future.