The Province’s Special Investigations Unit says there are no reasonable grounds for criminal charges against police in an incident where a man was punched in the face while resisting arrest and was later diagnosed with an orbital bone fracture.
The SIU says in a release, shortly after 4 a.m. on December 16th, 2022, an Owen Sound Police Service officer observed a 23-year-old man in the downtown area who was in violation of a release order curfew condition.
When the officer advised the man that he was under arrest, the SIU says the man ignored the officer and walked away down an alley way.
SIU Director Joseph Martino says in his statement, “The Complainant was in violation of a release order that required him to be home at the time of the events in question. As such, he was subject to lawful arrest…”
Three SIU Investigators reviewed video footage of the struggle as well as officers’ notes, communications recordings and conducted interviews. The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving an official where there has been death, serious injury, the discharge of a firearm at a person or an allegation of sexual assault.
The SIU says a struggle ensued, where the man tried to choke the officer, and the officer punched the man two to three times in the face.
With the assistance of another officer arriving at the scene, and after some further struggle, the man was eventually handcuffed.
He was transported to the police station and then to hospital where he was diagnosed with a fractured right orbital bone.
Director Joseph Martino says, “Pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, police officers are immune from criminal liability for force used in the course of their duties provided such force was reasonably necessary in the execution of an act that they were required or authorized to do by law.”
He says, “The Complainant physically resisted his arrest and was met with what, in my view, was reasonably necessary force. The punches delivered by the SO seem a proportionate escalation in the nature and extent of force used by the officer, following as they did an interval of struggle during which the officer was unable to wrestle the Complainant into submission.”
Martino says, “The takedown was justified for essentially the same reasons – with him on the ground, the officers could expect to better manage any continuing resistance on the part of the Complainant. In fact, the Complainant continued to resist arrest by refusing to release his arms and was met with several knee strikes delivered by WO #1(witness officer), after which the officers were able to wrest control of his arms and secure them in handcuffs. The knee strikes appear to have been a measured and direct response to the Complainant’s struggle, and fell within the range of what was reasonable force in the circumstances.”
Martino says, “In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injury was incurred in the course of the altercation that marked his arrest, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that it was the result of any unlawful conduct on the part of either the SO (subject official) or WO #1(witness officer). Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.”
