Posted By Jeremy Ashley
Feb 6, 2008
Belleville Intelligencer
Provincial police were looking for any way to pin a criminal charge on Shawn Brant in order to put the well-known protester on ice, his lawyer charged Tuesday.
"My client leads a lot of protests and probably causes the OPP a lot of headaches," said lawyer Rob Smart, whose comments at the close of a lengthy trial involving Brant and two other native protesters prompted a question from Justice Charles Anderson about where Smart was going with his allegations.
"In effect, what you are suggesting is an abuse of process - is that what your argument is?"
"Somewhere along the line, you have to suspect that someone is trying to put something on Shawn Brant - that is the gist of what I am trying to say," the Napanee-based lawyer replied.
Tuesday was the final day of the criminal trial into charges laid against three well-known native protesters: Shawn Michael Brant, 43; Jerome J. Barnhart, 44 and Mario Baptiste Jr., 22.
A decision is expected from Anderson, a Brockville-area judge, sometime within the next several months.
The three were charged by provincial police following an investigation into the November 2006 incident on Highway 2, near Deseronto, when a military convoy of army student drivers happened upon a number of native protesters.
Brant and Barnhart are facing several charges of uttering death threats stemming from the incident. Baptiste Jr. is facing two counts of assault and one charge of mischief.
The incident happened on Nov. 15, 2006 as several dozen Tyendinaga Mohawk demonstrators staged a protest on Deseronto Road in opposition of a nearby proposed land development.
The peaceful protest quickly turned into a heated confrontation as the unarmed convoy of student drivers from CFB Borden arrived at the scene. The court has heard the convoy arrived there by coincidence and the group's procession of heavy vehicles was abruptly stopped by the protesters.
The military caravan of five 10-ton trucks and a pickup truck was blocked in at the site for about an hour, after which it was slowly allowed to leave the area. However, as the pickup truck at the end of the convoy attempted to vacate the scene, it was swarmed by protesters.
"I could hear behind me a lot of angry accusations that the pickup truck had hit someone," said Const. Marcel Maracle in testimony early Tuesday.
Maracle, one of three police officers at the scene, didn't witness anyone being struck by the truck - but the reaction of protesters suggested the vehicle may have come into contact with someone as it attempted to leave.
Barnhart, he said, climbed on top of the front of the vehicle "began jumping up and down on the hood of the truck," Maracle said.
As the vehicle sat idle, Mario Baptiste Sr. and his son Mario Baptiste Jr. were both swinging punches at the truck's window, said the officer.
At one point, Baptiste Jr. managed to open the door of the truck and began striking the passenger, Maracle said.
At the time, the military officer in the passenger's seat "is not striking back, simply dealing with the punches coming in," said Maracle, who testified he pushed Baptiste Jr. back and close the door.
At that point, Baptiste Jr. snapped off the antenna of the truck and "began striking the truck with it."
In the midst of the swarming, Maracle confronted the crowd, saying "there wasn't any more to be gained by continuing" and asked that the vehicle be allowed to pass through.
The incident was confusing and evidence presented during the trial "had its variations," acknowledged assistant Crown attorney Richard Floyd during his final submissions.
The testimony from the various members of the military were "coloured by their distress and stress they were under at the time," he added, noting most were student "truck drivers" and should not be considered seasoned military officers.
"These military personnel were sworn at, threatened and spat upon ... it was, to them, a vulgar and demeaning incident.
"That is the extent of the venom and attitude being put toward military personnel, as they were perceiving it."
In his final remarks, Smart insisted there appeared to have been a plan by police to charge Brant and fellow protesters all along - whatever the evidence in the case - stating while the investigating provincial police officer was conducting interviews with the military officers a month after the incident, he "almost prompts them to propose the threats tied to Brant."
Smart said such a conspiracy is further evidenced by the fact the Canadian Forces personnel didn't mention the assaults to anyone until their meeting with the police.
"They didn't tell anybody until 30 days or three weeks later ... and didn't do that until at the end of the interview when they were prompted."
Several of the witnesses contradicted themselves regarding the chain of events, he noted - especially when their statements were compared to photographic evidence obtained from newspaper photographers at the scene.
The reason for charging Brant, Smart concluded, was because police knew of a planned native protest in January and wanted to have the protest leader under court conditions not to participate.