Letter to Juteah Downey, AKA Lord Downey (Ottawa police, Siobhan Wetcher, Narissa Somji, Ottawa human trafficking division)

Letter to Juteah Downey, AKA Lord Downey
Grounds for appeal Further to my letter of opinion

rendered to the Legal Aid office on July 6, 2023 I will elaborate briefly below on the grounds already referred to and also attach an affidavit from Brown sworn March 13, 2024 relevant to the denied trial request of the Crown to disclose the Ottawa Police Professional Standards investigation into the activity of officer K and any other police officer connected to your case. One proposed area of appeal highlighted the learned trial judge’s failure to assess the numerous inconsistencies in the evidence of the four complainants. Trial judges are not required to deal expressly with every inconsistency in the evidence but should address contradictory evidence on key or material points. It is submitted that the learned trial judge did not address or analyze inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainants on key and material

points. In regard to the third party records application, my recollection is that when your co-accused Brown was arrested by officers Hussein and Standing, her black iphone was seized. There was another pink iphone seized in a hotel lobby, when you and MM were arrested. The trial judge mistakenly attributed text messages and a web history search of the pink iphone to you, but the pink iphone was never examined. The other phone seized was a black iphone. The information provided by the Crown and the disclosure provided seems contradictory and it is difficult to reconcile the differences. There was no disclosure of the contents of this phone such as a data dump. My recollection is that the phone was not forensically examined or the police were unable to examine it, even though Brown states she provided her password for it. It was the Crown that disclosed to me the existence of the internal Professional Standards branch investigation into an officer connected to this case. The Professional Standards Branch must have seen officer’s K’s phone number on Brown’s phone or learned of the link between them in some other way. We do know from the email of Brown sent to officers Clement and Standing on May 18, 2021 that Brown disclosed the name of officer K as the person she exchanged numbers with. The phone number used by the officer involved was not disclosed. We do know that officer Clement had a slew of questions concerning officer K that she wanted to question Brown about but Brown did not participate in answering those questions. Brown’s phone number commenced with 647 and was often mentioned in the trial as the main number for Canadas booking agency. Officer Hussein, who interviewed you and other witnesses in the case, has since resigned after being charged criminally in a tow truck kickback scheme not related to your case. Nevertheless, he was involved in Brown’s arrest. On the third party records application, my recollection is that the Crown did not disagree that there was never a data dump on the black iphone or disclosure of its contents. The motion having been unsuccessful, we were not able to get to the bottom of the matter to establish to what degree the investigation may have been tainted and what an appropriate remedy would have been. Yours very truly, Robert B. Carew