Latest news with #Turnbull
Hamilton Spectator
21 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Crown says Hamilton cop charged with sexual assault ‘vigorously pursued' relationship with colleague
A Crown attorney has asked a judge to find a Hamilton police officer guilty of sexually assaulting his younger colleague more than three years ago. Crown attorney Jason Nicol spent a handful of hours presenting his final submissions to the Burlington courtroom on Tuesday as the months-long trial for Const. Jeffrey Turnbull came to a close. Turnbull is accused of sexually assaulting a colleague in the basement of his Ancaster home in March 2022. The sexual assault charge was announced in June 2023 following a probe by the Special Investigations Unit. Turnbull has pleaded not guilty and remains suspended with pay. His trial began in early January and has sat sporadically ever since. Nicol noted that while Turnbull has been charged with just one count of sexual assault, the complainant alleged multiple incidents of inappropriate touching at the hands of her more senior colleague. Nicol went on to suggest that Justice Jennifer Campitelli could take 'multiple routes' to find Turnbull guilty in the case. Earlier this year, the complainant — whose identity is protected by a publication ban — testified that she and Turnbull met on the job in late 2021, months after she was sworn into the service and still in her probationary period. Turnbull had been with the Hamilton Police Service for more than a decade at the time. The complainant said the two first spoke when she was sitting alone in the lunchroom. Turnbull said he couldn't find her on social media. He told her about his family and asked if she was in a relationship. She said he also talked about her being a female officer, and how there 'would be rumours' about her 'sleeping with other police officers' — conversations that left her feeling 'super uncomfortable.' The complainant said she gave Turnbull her Snapchat information and cellphone number. The complainant said Turnbull would discuss his mental health and marriage, compliment her and make suggestive comments. She also said he sent her photos of his genitalia. An on-the-job spinal injury in January 2022 led the complainant to be put on alternative duties in a separate office. That's where she alleges several incidents involving Turnbull took place in February and March 2022, including partially unzipping her work pants, grabbing her buttocks and trying to kiss her. She said the situation escalated on March 26, 2022. She testified that Turnbull had asked her to come over, but she declined. Later that evening, the complainant said she started getting more messages from Turnbull, including ones about 'killing himself,' so she drove to his house in Ancaster. When the complainant got there, she said, she met his children. And later on, she alleged that Turnbull sexually assaulted her on a couch in the basement of his home — while his children were upstairs and his wife was away. Turnbull previously testified that he and the complainant had engaged in a months-long affair that began with texts and Snapchats about things like food, music and workouts, and later progressed to sexting and the exchange of nude photos. Turnbull later told the court that the affair came to an end in early April 2022, just days after they had consensual sex at his house while his wife was at a yoga retreat. But Nicol painted a much different picture in the courtroom on Tuesday, suggesting that Turnbull 'vigorously pursued' a relationship with the complainant, despite her trying to set boundaries and ask for space. Nicol also once again suggested that Turnbull was 'psychologically manipulative' when it came to his mental health, often using it to coerce the complainant . 'This case is about a more experienced and senior police officer who would not take no for an answer from a younger, very inexperienced female colleague despite her attempts to mollify him and repel his advances,' said Nicol. 'This was not a mutually agreeable relationship.' Nicol also spent parts of his closing submissions responding to those made by defence lawyer Joanne Mulcahy earlier in the trial. Mulcahy had previously suggested to the court that there were 'significant concerns' about the reliability of the complainant, pointing to inconsistencies and evasiveness in her testimony. Mulcahy noted that the complainant's testimony didn't match police records , she had issues remembering dates and that she had asked to see her previous statements and testimony while being questioned on the stand. Nicol argued that it was 'unfair and unrealistic' to think the complainant had memorized her prior statements and testimony, as well as conversations with Turnbull, which were also raised by Mulcahy throughout the trial. Nicol said that while the complainant 'did not have perfect recall and her evidence was not without flaws,' she had been 'consistent and clear' throughout the trial when it came to the allegations against Turnbull . 'It has always been clear that she never consented,' said Nicol. '(Turnbull) should be convicted as charged.' Mulcahy replied to those submissions, ending with a suggestion to the judge that it would 'not be safe to convict' her client based on the evidence. A verdict in the case is expected in early October. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Hamilton Spectator
a day ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Verdict in Hamilton police officer's sexual assault trial expected in October
A Crown attorney has asked a judge to find a Hamilton police officer guilty of sexually assaulting his younger colleague more than three years ago. Crown attorney Jason Nicol spent a handful of hours presenting his final submissions to the Burlington courtroom on Tuesday as the months-long trial for Const. Jeffrey Turnbull came to a close. Turnbull is accused of sexually assaulting a colleague in the basement of his Ancaster home in March 2022. The sexual assault charge was announced in June 2023 following a probe by the Special Investigations Unit. Turnbull has pleaded not guilty and remains suspended with pay. His trial began in early January and has sat sporadically ever since. Nicol noted that while Turnbull has been charged with just one count of sexual assault, the complainant alleged multiple incidents of inappropriate touching at the hands of her more senior colleague. Nicol went on to suggest that Justice Jennifer Campitelli could take 'multiple routes' to find Turnbull guilty in the case. Earlier this year, the complainant — whose identity is protected by a publication ban — testified that she and Turnbull met on the job in late 2021, months after she was sworn into the service and still in her probationary period. Turnbull had been with the Hamilton Police Service for more than a decade at the time. The complainant said the two first spoke when she was sitting alone in the lunchroom. Turnbull said he couldn't find her on social media. He told her about his family and asked if she was in a relationship. She said he also talked about her being a female officer, and how there 'would be rumours' about her 'sleeping with other police officers' — conversations that left her feeling 'super uncomfortable.' The complainant said she gave Turnbull her Snapchat information and cellphone number. The complainant said Turnbull would discuss his mental health and marriage, compliment her and make suggestive comments. She also said he sent her photos of his genitalia. An on-the-job spinal injury in January 2022 led the complainant to be put on alternative duties in a separate office. That's where she alleges several incidents involving Turnbull took place in February and March 2022, including partially unzipping her work pants, grabbing her buttocks and trying to kiss her. She said the situation escalated on March 26, 2022. She testified that Turnbull had asked her to come over, but she declined. Later that evening, the complainant said she started getting more messages from Turnbull, including ones about 'killing himself,' so she drove to his house in Ancaster. When the complainant got there, she said, she met his children. And later on, she alleged that Turnbull sexually assaulted her on a couch in the basement of his home — while his children were upstairs and his wife was away. Turnbull previously testified that he and the complainant had engaged in a months-long affair that began with texts and Snapchats about things like food, music and workouts, and later progressed to sexting and the exchange of nude photos. Turnbull later told the court that the affair came to an end in early April 2022, just days after they had consensual sex at his house while his wife was at a yoga retreat. But Nicol painted a much different picture in the courtroom on Tuesday, suggesting that Turnbull 'vigorously pursued' a relationship with the complainant, despite her trying to set boundaries and ask for space. Nicol also once again suggested that Turnbull was 'psychologically manipulative' when it came to his mental health, often using it to coerce the complainant . 'This case is about a more experienced and senior police officer who would not take no for an answer from a younger, very inexperienced female colleague despite her attempts to mollify him and repel his advances,' said Nicol. 'This was not a mutually agreeable relationship.' Nicol also spent parts of his closing submissions responding to those made by defence lawyer Joanne Mulcahy earlier in the trial. Mulcahy had previously suggested to the court that there were 'significant concerns' about the reliability of the complainant, pointing to inconsistencies and evasiveness in her testimony. Mulcahy noted that the complainant's testimony didn't match police records , she had issues remembering dates and that she had asked to see her previous statements and testimony while being questioned on the stand. Nicol argued that it was 'unfair and unrealistic' to think the complainant had memorized her prior statements and testimony, as well as conversations with Turnbull, which were also raised by Mulcahy throughout the trial. Nicol said that while the complainant 'did not have perfect recall and her evidence was not without flaws,' she had been 'consistent and clear' throughout the trial when it came to the allegations against Turnbull . 'It has always been clear that she never consented,' said Nicol. '(Turnbull) should be convicted as charged.' Mulcahy replied to those submissions, ending with a suggestion to the judge that it would 'not be safe to convict' her client based on the evidence. A verdict in the case is expected in early October. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Western Telegraph
2 days ago
- Politics
- Western Telegraph
‘No justification' for special advocates for families in Omagh closed hearings
It is expected that some hearings during the inquiry, which is probing whether the 1998 dissident republican atrocity could have been prevented, will be closed due to sensitive evidence and national security. Twenty nine people, including a woman pregnant with twins, were killed when the Real IRA exploded a car bomb in the Co Tyrone town. The aftermath of the Omagh bomb in 1998. (PA Archive) Inquiry chairman Lord Turnbull heard arguments over the last two days around applications from some of the family groups for special advocates. They said their interests should be represented in closed hearings, and raised a risk of damage to confidence in the inquiry if they are not. However a lawyer for the Government said no statutory public inquiry has had special advocates to date, and there was no justification to have them in this case. Katherine Grange KC also contended no provision was made for such appointments in the 2005 Inquiries Act, and cautioned around avoiding unnecessary costs. She described the Saville Inquiry into the Bloody Sunday atrocity, which lasted for 12 years and cost £195 million, as the background of that Act. 'The language of the statutory scheme, the purpose and the context of the legislation and Parliament's intention, as demonstrated in subsequent legislations all strongly suggest that no such power exists (to appoint a special advocate),' she said. 'Alternatively, we submit that even if such a power existed, it would not be necessary or appropriate for the chair to make any such appointment in this inquiry. 'No inquiry has taken that step to date, even inquiries with a very substantial closed national security element to them, and there is no justification from departing from that approach.' The hearing room at the Silverbirch Hotel in Omagh (PA) She added: 'Words that come to mind in the last two days are, it's about reassurance, confidence, robustness. 'One can understand, on a human level, why those points are being made but ultimately, you have to have faith in your own appointment, your independence and the skill of your counsel to your inquiry.' Earlier, Hugh Southey KC, representing a group of survivors and bereaved families, said the state parties would be felt to have an advantage. 'Everybody thinks that the inquiry is capable of doing a good job. Everybody thinks the counsel to the inquiry are experienced in this field. Everybody thinks they're very well qualified. Everybody thinks they're very diligent, but we need the second tier of representation,' he added. 'Everyone recognises that large key parts of this process are likely to be closed …. it's frustrating for the individuals, because they want to know the truth. They want to know that whatever findings may be made are reliable. 'If they have someone who they have confidence in, who is present, who is, effectively, saying there is no problem here, that adds to confidence in the process, particularly in circumstances where, as I say, the state parties are present, the state parties will have that advantage.' Alan Kane KC, representing another group of survivors and bereaved families, said they would like their own special advocate for closed hearings. 'Their wish would be to see all the relevant evidence after 26 years, however if there must be closed material, then we say that it should, where possible, be kept to a minimum, and if judgments are to be made then close calls must fall on the side of disclosure rather than being hidden from our families' view,' he said. 'They view a special advocate not as some special bonus or as a challenge to the inquiry legal team but as something that should be granted as they see it, as an additional assistance to them in shining light on any material which is withheld as closed by the state authorities. 'They have that legitimate interest we say, and that certainly is a matter of not only public confidence but in particular the confidence of the families.' Fintan McAleer, who represents another group of survivors and bereaved families, said they endorsed the submissions made so far. Lord Turnbull asked Mr McAleer about a point made in written submissions that the 'deep mistrust and suspicion of the state that exists in this country will never be fully allayed unless it's confirmed that every single document and piece of information is placed into the open'. Mr McAleer responded saying they respect the powers and the processes of the inquiry, but they wanted to reflect the effect of scepticism based on experience. 'The series of revelations over the years since the bomb have served to undermine their trust in the state,' he added. 'We're simply trying to convey the aspiration of the core participants we represent is that this inquiry should be in public in everything that it does, we accept there is a limitation on that, and that paragraph is an attempt to address that.' Meanwhile, Michael Mansfield KC, who represents the family of the late campaigner Laurence Rush – whose wife Elizabeth was killed in the bomb, said they are not asking for a special advocate to be appointed for them. They voiced concern about the possibility of delay to proceedings. Ian Skelt KC, acting for former chief constable Sir Ronnie Flanagan, said his client is 'entirely sympathetic' to the requests of the families and acknowledges why they seek the appointment of special advocates. He said Sir Ronnie does not seek a special advocate for himself, but acknowledged that having been chief constable at the time of the bombing, he had the authority at that time to view much of the closed material. However, Mr Skelt said if Sir Ronnie is excluded from the closed processes, he 'may have to ask for some person to represent his interest in closed process beyond the assistance that would be given by the inquiry legal team'. At the conclusion of the hearings around special advocates on Tuesday afternoon, Lord Turnbull said the issue raised is 'both important and interesting'. 'It's necessary that I take care to reflect on all of those submissions, and I will produce a written decision in due course,' he said.
Rhyl Journal
2 days ago
- Politics
- Rhyl Journal
‘No justification' for special advocates for families in Omagh closed hearings
It is expected that some hearings during the inquiry, which is probing whether the 1998 dissident republican atrocity could have been prevented, will be closed due to sensitive evidence and national security. Twenty nine people, including a woman pregnant with twins, were killed when the Real IRA exploded a car bomb in the Co Tyrone town. Inquiry chairman Lord Turnbull heard arguments over the last two days around applications from some of the family groups for special advocates. They said their interests should be represented in closed hearings, and raised a risk of damage to confidence in the inquiry if they are not. However a lawyer for the Government said no statutory public inquiry has had special advocates to date, and there was no justification to have them in this case. Katherine Grange KC also contended no provision was made for such appointments in the 2005 Inquiries Act, and cautioned around avoiding unnecessary costs. She described the Saville Inquiry into the Bloody Sunday atrocity, which lasted for 12 years and cost £195 million, as the background of that Act. 'The language of the statutory scheme, the purpose and the context of the legislation and Parliament's intention, as demonstrated in subsequent legislations all strongly suggest that no such power exists (to appoint a special advocate),' she said. 'Alternatively, we submit that even if such a power existed, it would not be necessary or appropriate for the chair to make any such appointment in this inquiry. 'No inquiry has taken that step to date, even inquiries with a very substantial closed national security element to them, and there is no justification from departing from that approach.' She added: 'Words that come to mind in the last two days are, it's about reassurance, confidence, robustness. 'One can understand, on a human level, why those points are being made but ultimately, you have to have faith in your own appointment, your independence and the skill of your counsel to your inquiry.' Earlier, Hugh Southey KC, representing a group of survivors and bereaved families, said the state parties would be felt to have an advantage. 'Everybody thinks that the inquiry is capable of doing a good job. Everybody thinks the counsel to the inquiry are experienced in this field. Everybody thinks they're very well qualified. Everybody thinks they're very diligent, but we need the second tier of representation,' he added. 'Everyone recognises that large key parts of this process are likely to be closed …. it's frustrating for the individuals, because they want to know the truth. They want to know that whatever findings may be made are reliable. 'If they have someone who they have confidence in, who is present, who is, effectively, saying there is no problem here, that adds to confidence in the process, particularly in circumstances where, as I say, the state parties are present, the state parties will have that advantage.' Alan Kane KC, representing another group of survivors and bereaved families, said they would like their own special advocate for closed hearings. 'Their wish would be to see all the relevant evidence after 26 years, however if there must be closed material, then we say that it should, where possible, be kept to a minimum, and if judgments are to be made then close calls must fall on the side of disclosure rather than being hidden from our families' view,' he said. 'They view a special advocate not as some special bonus or as a challenge to the inquiry legal team but as something that should be granted as they see it, as an additional assistance to them in shining light on any material which is withheld as closed by the state authorities. 'They have that legitimate interest we say, and that certainly is a matter of not only public confidence but in particular the confidence of the families.' Fintan McAleer, who represents another group of survivors and bereaved families, said they endorsed the submissions made so far. Lord Turnbull asked Mr McAleer about a point made in written submissions that the 'deep mistrust and suspicion of the state that exists in this country will never be fully allayed unless it's confirmed that every single document and piece of information is placed into the open'. Mr McAleer responded saying they respect the powers and the processes of the inquiry, but they wanted to reflect the effect of scepticism based on experience. 'The series of revelations over the years since the bomb have served to undermine their trust in the state,' he added. 'We're simply trying to convey the aspiration of the core participants we represent is that this inquiry should be in public in everything that it does, we accept there is a limitation on that, and that paragraph is an attempt to address that.' Meanwhile, Michael Mansfield KC, who represents the family of the late campaigner Laurence Rush – whose wife Elizabeth was killed in the bomb, said they are not asking for a special advocate to be appointed for them. They voiced concern about the possibility of delay to proceedings. Ian Skelt KC, acting for former chief constable Sir Ronnie Flanagan, said his client is 'entirely sympathetic' to the requests of the families and acknowledges why they seek the appointment of special advocates. He said Sir Ronnie does not seek a special advocate for himself, but acknowledged that having been chief constable at the time of the bombing, he had the authority at that time to view much of the closed material. However, Mr Skelt said if Sir Ronnie is excluded from the closed processes, he 'may have to ask for some person to represent his interest in closed process beyond the assistance that would be given by the inquiry legal team'. At the conclusion of the hearings around special advocates on Tuesday afternoon, Lord Turnbull said the issue raised is 'both important and interesting'. 'It's necessary that I take care to reflect on all of those submissions, and I will produce a written decision in due course,' he said.
Leader Live
2 days ago
- Politics
- Leader Live
‘No justification' for special advocates for families in Omagh closed hearings
It is expected that some hearings during the inquiry, which is probing whether the 1998 dissident republican atrocity could have been prevented, will be closed due to sensitive evidence and national security. Twenty nine people, including a woman pregnant with twins, were killed when the Real IRA exploded a car bomb in the Co Tyrone town. Inquiry chairman Lord Turnbull heard arguments over the last two days around applications from some of the family groups for special advocates. They said their interests should be represented in closed hearings, and raised a risk of damage to confidence in the inquiry if they are not. However a lawyer for the Government said no statutory public inquiry has had special advocates to date, and there was no justification to have them in this case. Katherine Grange KC also contended no provision was made for such appointments in the 2005 Inquiries Act, and cautioned around avoiding unnecessary costs. She described the Saville Inquiry into the Bloody Sunday atrocity, which lasted for 12 years and cost £195 million, as the background of that Act. 'The language of the statutory scheme, the purpose and the context of the legislation and Parliament's intention, as demonstrated in subsequent legislations all strongly suggest that no such power exists (to appoint a special advocate),' she said. 'Alternatively, we submit that even if such a power existed, it would not be necessary or appropriate for the chair to make any such appointment in this inquiry. 'No inquiry has taken that step to date, even inquiries with a very substantial closed national security element to them, and there is no justification from departing from that approach.' She added: 'Words that come to mind in the last two days are, it's about reassurance, confidence, robustness. 'One can understand, on a human level, why those points are being made but ultimately, you have to have faith in your own appointment, your independence and the skill of your counsel to your inquiry.' Earlier, Hugh Southey KC, representing a group of survivors and bereaved families, said the state parties would be felt to have an advantage. 'Everybody thinks that the inquiry is capable of doing a good job. Everybody thinks the counsel to the inquiry are experienced in this field. Everybody thinks they're very well qualified. Everybody thinks they're very diligent, but we need the second tier of representation,' he added. 'Everyone recognises that large key parts of this process are likely to be closed …. it's frustrating for the individuals, because they want to know the truth. They want to know that whatever findings may be made are reliable. 'If they have someone who they have confidence in, who is present, who is, effectively, saying there is no problem here, that adds to confidence in the process, particularly in circumstances where, as I say, the state parties are present, the state parties will have that advantage.' Alan Kane KC, representing another group of survivors and bereaved families, said they would like their own special advocate for closed hearings. 'Their wish would be to see all the relevant evidence after 26 years, however if there must be closed material, then we say that it should, where possible, be kept to a minimum, and if judgments are to be made then close calls must fall on the side of disclosure rather than being hidden from our families' view,' he said. 'They view a special advocate not as some special bonus or as a challenge to the inquiry legal team but as something that should be granted as they see it, as an additional assistance to them in shining light on any material which is withheld as closed by the state authorities. 'They have that legitimate interest we say, and that certainly is a matter of not only public confidence but in particular the confidence of the families.' Fintan McAleer, who represents another group of survivors and bereaved families, said they endorsed the submissions made so far. Lord Turnbull asked Mr McAleer about a point made in written submissions that the 'deep mistrust and suspicion of the state that exists in this country will never be fully allayed unless it's confirmed that every single document and piece of information is placed into the open'. Mr McAleer responded saying they respect the powers and the processes of the inquiry, but they wanted to reflect the effect of scepticism based on experience. 'The series of revelations over the years since the bomb have served to undermine their trust in the state,' he added. 'We're simply trying to convey the aspiration of the core participants we represent is that this inquiry should be in public in everything that it does, we accept there is a limitation on that, and that paragraph is an attempt to address that.' Meanwhile, Michael Mansfield KC, who represents the family of the late campaigner Laurence Rush – whose wife Elizabeth was killed in the bomb, said they are not asking for a special advocate to be appointed for them. They voiced concern about the possibility of delay to proceedings. Ian Skelt KC, acting for former chief constable Sir Ronnie Flanagan, said his client is 'entirely sympathetic' to the requests of the families and acknowledges why they seek the appointment of special advocates. He said Sir Ronnie does not seek a special advocate for himself, but acknowledged that having been chief constable at the time of the bombing, he had the authority at that time to view much of the closed material. However, Mr Skelt said if Sir Ronnie is excluded from the closed processes, he 'may have to ask for some person to represent his interest in closed process beyond the assistance that would be given by the inquiry legal team'. At the conclusion of the hearings around special advocates on Tuesday afternoon, Lord Turnbull said the issue raised is 'both important and interesting'. 'It's necessary that I take care to reflect on all of those submissions, and I will produce a written decision in due course,' he said.
