The Quebec Court of Appeal on Thursday dismissed appeals from Tony Accurso, who challenged the verdicts and sentence imposed on him following his trial for fraud and corruption, even though he sharply criticized the conduct of the Crown and police in the case.
Their behavior did not, however, make the trial of the former construction contractor unfair, writes the Court of Appeal in a detailed 76-page judgment.
The Court of Appeal thus summons Mr. Accurso to surrender to prison authorities by 1er June to complete the four-year prison sentence imposed on him. However, the man can still appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
In June 2018, Tony Accurso was found guilty by a jury for having actively participated in a system of corruption and collusion that raged in Laval under the reign of ex-mayor Gilles Vaillancourt, between 1996 and 2010. The two men — and 35 other people — had been arrested in May 2013 by the Permanent Anti-Corruption Unit (UPAC).
Mr. Accurso maintained that he was unaware of his companies’ involvement in the scheme since he was not involved in day-to-day operations. He had pleaded not guilty to all charges.
The system put in place by Gilles Vaillancourt ensured that the City of Laval awarded public contracts to companies that offered a 2% rebate to the mayor and his associates. Two companies of Tony Accurso, Construction Louisbourg and Simard-Beaudry, obtained such contracts, it is written in the decision of the Court of Appeal.
Reproaches in connection with an aborted first trial
Tony Accurso had raised numerous grounds of appeal, many of which revolved around the miscarriage of his first trial (and subsequent police investigation).
It ended abruptly in 2017 when a juror revealed to the judge that his uncle had confided to him that he had seen Marc Gendron, a money collector for Mayor Vaillancourt, with suitcases filled with banknotes, all in connection with the Laval corruption system. This same Marc Gendron testified at trial that he had met Tony Accurso in a parking lot and that he had given him a $200,000 rebate. The woman had shared this information with two other jurors. A highly unusual criminal investigation had been launched to determine if anyone had tried to infect the jury.
The miscarriage of the first trial favored the prosecution, because it had already revealed its defense strategy; the Crown was thus able to adapt and improve its evidence, complained Tony Accurso.
In its judgment on Thursday, the Court of Appeal noted that the revelations made to the juror quickly proved to be unfounded: the uncle had made a “bad joke” and no crime had been committed. But police investigators continued their efforts, noting in passing that jurors believed that the accused would be acquitted. Having had access to this information and to the opinion of the jury also unduly benefited the prosecution, had pleaded the ex-entrepreneur.
The Court described the police conduct in the case as “problematic” and “incredibly reckless”, because the investigators obtained information about the deliberations of the jurors, which must nevertheless remain secret.
As for the Crown, it initially neglected to provide the defense with the police investigation report on the jurors – a “troublesome” omission, writes the Court of Appeal, considering that this conduct must be “reproved”.
Imperfect, but legit
But if the conduct of the police and the lack of transparency of the prosecution fed “legitimate concerns” at Tony Accurso, did they give an unfair advantage to the prosecution during the second trial of the ex-construction contractor? No, answers the Court.
The facts revealed do not make it possible “to establish the existence of an oblique will to use a legitimate criminal investigation to complete the prosecution’s evidence or to pierce in an illegitimate and inappropriate manner the secrecy of the deliberations”, reads- one in judgment.
And although it regrets certain aspects of the conduct of the police and the Crown, the Quebec Court of Appeal judges that the circumstances cannot be considered as “a clear case justifying depriving society of the verdict rendered”. She also confirms that the four-year prison sentence imposed on her is adequate.