Threatened with death, exiled and under police protection, the relatives of a young criminal who offered the Longueuil police to become an informant in a firearms case have been living in terror since the video of his offer to collaborate s is found on social media. They are claiming more than $220,000 from the City of Longueuil due to police negligence.
Posted at 5:32 p.m.
For a year, the three relatives of the accused have been hiding in terror. They are “seriously threatened”, concluded a judge last February. A “contract” was even placed on their heads. They also benefited from the witness protection program of the Service de police de la Ville de Montréal.
These three people, whose identity is protected, had to change their appearance and change cities. They no longer leave their residence alone. One of them alleges that she had to give up her promising career because of the threats.
” [Elles] have had to make multiple sacrifices to protect their integrity and security, ”concludes a lawsuit filed at the Montreal courthouse and made public on Monday.
Their nightmare began last year, when a relative, an already hardened young criminal (Mr. X) offered to an investigator from the Longueuil agglomeration police department (SPAL) during a filmed become a collaborator of justice. Mr. X, who was arrested in August 2021 in the DIX30 district with a firearm, wanted to denounce other criminals in exchange for a reduced sentence.
” I will help you. I’m going to take you back to them because you arrested me with a small gun that day. Do you want five or six guns? Want to grab some real guns? You want to go grab the houses where it’s at? The coke? “, he asked the investigation, reported The Press last year.
A few days later, the unredacted video of the interrogation ended up on social networks, when it had just been disclosed to the lawyers of the accused and his co-accused. A compromising extract from the video displaying the word “RAT”, the young man’s name and date of birth ended up on the TikTok platform.
The Press revealed last year that an associate of organized crime, Kevin St-Pierre, and his ex-spouse, criminal lawyer Noémi Tellier, were under investigation in connection with the leak of the video. Me Tellier, the lawyer for Mr. X’s accomplice, was apprehended by the police and then released without charges last year. She denies any involvement in the case.
A judge flays the police
In the civil motion, the three plaintiffs accuse the SPAL police officers of having omitted to redact sensitive information from the interrogation of Mr. X before the disclosure of the evidence.
“By neglecting to take the necessary measures to safeguard the identity of Mr. X and the content of the recording of his interrogation [le SPAL] has seriously undermined the security and integrity, not only of Mr. X, but also of [ses proches] “, we argue in the lawsuit.
The plaintiffs are relying on a decision rendered last February by Judge Louise Leduc of the Court of Quebec in the context of a motion for a stay of proceedings filed by Mr. X. The judge concludes that the State has committed “faults” by not adequately protecting the accused. Even if he did not have the status of informant, he should have benefited from the “protection of witnesses granted by the Common law”, concludes the judge.
The judge criticizes the State for the “lack of attention” paid to the file and the rapid communication of the evidence. Instead of disclosing the video as is, it would have been possible to redact it or provide a summary of the statement to the lawyers, suggests the judge. The right of the defense to obtain evidence is not absolute when the safety of third parties is at stake, she recalls.
However, despite the faults of the State, Judge Leduc concluded that the stoppage of the legal process requested by Mr. X was not justified. The magistrate does not find any “suspicion of bad faith, questionable strategy or oblique motives” on the part of the State, but only a lack of “vigilance”.
Moreover, the state is not solely responsible in this case. Without naming anyone, the judge mentions that the lawyer for Mr. X’s co-accused acted as a “transmission belt for the collapse”. Also, Mr. X, a “highly criminalized” man, was well aware of the risk involved in his attempt to collaborate. Moreover, the redacting of his video would not have completely protected him from reprisals, according to the judge.
The SPAL did not respond to our interview request.