Supreme Court rejects appeals in Dziekanski police-perjury convictions
Robert Dziekanski holds a small table at the Vancouver Airport before he was tasered by police in this image from video. Const. Bill Bentley stands trial beginning Monday on charges of perjury for his testimony at a public inquiry into Robert Dziekanski's death at Vancouver's airport. (Paul Pritchard / THE CANADIAN PRESS)
OTTAWA -- The Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed appeals from two men convicted of perjury in connection with a notorious Taser death at Vancouver's airport in 2007.
The court rejected the appeals immediately after hearing them.
Kwesi Millington and Benjamin (Monty) Robinson were among four Mounties charged with perjury following a public inquiry into the death of Robert Dziekanski.
He was jolted several times with a RCMP Taser and died in the arrivals area of the airport.
Both men were convicted of lying to the public inquiry about their actions around Dziekanski's death.
Dziekanski's mother, Zofia Cisowski, said she immediately began to cry and shake when she heard the appeals had been rejected.
The 10-year anniversary of her son's death was only a couple weeks ago, on Oct. 14.
"I'm so happy," she said. "I was waiting for this news (for) 10 years ... I feel like I'm alive again."
The Crown's case, based on circumstantial evidence, alleged the officers concocted the story to first tell investigators and then lied at the public inquiry to cover it up.
Millington and Robinson were convicted, while Bill Bentley and Gerry Rundell were both acquitted of the charge after testifying at the public inquiry.
Millington was sentenced to 30 months in prison and Robinson was handed a jail term of two years less a day, one year of probation and 240 hours of community service.
Both men separately appealed their B.C. Supreme Court convictions, arguing that the trial judge made a mistake in assessing the evidence against them.
B.C.'s Court of Appeal upheld their convictions.
In Millington's appeal, Justice David Harris said that the constable was simply asking the court to reinterpret the evidence and draw different inferences from it.
Because the high court justices ruled from the bench, formal reasons for their decision were not immediately available.