Sentence for ex-Mountie exposes 'two-tier justice system,' Manitoba prosecutors claim

Police officers have for too long benefited from lenient punishments when they are convicted of crimes and it's eroding public trust in Canada that justice will be done. 

That's the view of Manitoba Crown prosecutors, as they wait to hear whether the country's highest court will hear their bid to overturn what they believe is the latest in insufficient sentences handed to an ex-Thompson RCMP officer convicted of criminal negligence causing bodily harm. 

"Sentences imposed in the past no longer fit with society's views of how police officers ought to be held accountable and the irreparable damage that police offending conduct has on the faith that the public has in the administration of justice,"  prosecutors Chris Vanderhooft and Ashleigh Smith argue in documents filed with the Supreme Court of Canada.

"The public is taking to the streets to demand justice and accountability. It is speaking with a voice that has never been louder than in this current social climate," they said, ostensibly referencing recent widespread protests against police misconduct against Black, Indigenous and communities of colour in the U.S. and Canada.

The Crown is hoping to see Abram Letkeman re-sentenced for a second time. 

After a 2019 trial, Letkeman was handed a sentence of three years probation, a $10,000 fine, community service and a driving prohibition for his on-duty conduct early on Nov. 21, 2015. 

He was found guilty of recklessly injuring a woman when he twice used his police cruiser to strike a Jeep he was pursuing, including T-boning it on the passenger side. Letkeman testified he believed its driver was impaired and was aware there were other occupants in the Jeep at the time. The woman suffered a fractured pelvis and a broken neck. 

Letkeman ultimately shot and killed the driver, Steven Campbell, but was acquitted of charges related to the shooting after the trial judge ruled it was justified. 

In a split decision in July, a three-judge panel of Manitoba's Court of Appeal ruled Letkeman's sentence unfit and overturned the trial judge's initial sentence.

In re-sentencing Letkeman, two of three judges said a fit punishment was 10 months in jail, but imposed three months. They upheld his $10,000 fine but stayed the execution of jail time. 

That slightly stiffer punishment still didn't fit Letkeman's crime, prosecutors argue. 

The court has not yet said if it will hear the case but the Crown attorneys said the issues presented in the appeal are a national problem. 

"The sentences imposed in this case exposed serious flaws in our justice system," they told the SCC. 

This is not a case of direct, individual or systemic racism.- Defence lawyer Josh Weinstein 

"Police officer offenders have historically received lenient sentences which no longer reflect societal values about the inherent harm when they exploit the authority bestowed on them. 

"They evidence a two-tiered justice system which treats offenders of means and good community standing differently," the Crown attorneys said. 

The provincial trial and appeal courts focused too much on punishing Letkeman's driving conduct, versus denouncing his unnecessary use of excessive force, the Crown argues. 

They also contend the courts also made the mistake of placing too much weight on Letkeman's personal circumstances and "collateral" consequences he was left with from the incident (court heard he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression as a result) in reaching their decisions. 

Key to the prosecutors' argument is how Manitoba appeal court Justice William Burnett believed Letkeman should have gone to prison – for 36 months minus six for community service he's done.

Burnett wrote an at-times sharply-worded dissent in the case, one which the Crown argues was the right approach to take. 

• Judge finds Manitoba Mountie not guilty of manslaughter

• 'I was terrified,' RCMP officer charged in fatal 2015 Thompson shooting testifies

"It is inconceivable that a civilian offender in similar circumstances would receive such a lenient sentence," Burnett wrote. "A fine was never a fit sentence — or a component of a fit sentence — for this offence and this offender.

"Leaving aside the fact that most offenders could not afford to pay a $10,000 fine, a significant period of incarceration was — and is — required," the judge said. 

"The sentence imposed by the trial judge must be incomprehensible to [the victim], to members of her community and to the public generally in Manitoba," Burnett wrote. 

The Crown said allowing Letkeman's sentence to stand enforces the belief police take part in a "special justice system" where the punishments they get are reduced by "circumstances that allow them to commit crimes in the first place" and by leaning on  "collateral consequences" that are a natural result of their actions. 

'Public trust was safeguarded,' lawyer says

In reply, defence lawyer Josh Weinstein argues prosecutors are trying to make Letkeman's case seem like it has wider social implications when it really doesn't. 

"This is not a case of direct, individual or systemic racism," he said. "[Letkeman's] actions were not the result of conscious or unconscious bias against the victim. The victim did not belong to any vulnerable group in our society … 

"None of the factors that have led to the large-scale public outcry referred to by [prosecutors] – presumably seen in movements like Black Lives Matter – are present in this case," said Weinstein. 

"An error by a trial judge, corrected on appeal, does not constitute an issue of national and public importance." 

• Thousands gather in peaceful protest at Manitoba Legislature to demand Justice 4 Black Lives

• How are police responding to calls for change one year after murder of George Floyd?

In the end, Letkeman was accountable for his actions by Manitoba's appeal court, he noted. Jail time was noted as part of his sentence. 

"Public trust was safeguarded and the need to denounce the offender's criminal behaviour was met. That is the essence of this case," said Weinstein. 

The Supreme Court has not announced a date to say whether they will hear the Crown's appeal. If they decline to, it is customary for the court to not provide reasons.