How long does a crucifixion take? Most, fortunately, have no idea but quite likely Const. Joey Smyth has an appreciation of its duration.
The recent Court of Appeal decision overturning his conviction for obstruction of justice, a most specious laying of a charge to begin with, should cause some serious reflection on our part.
I would not presume that the 38 years I have spent within various aspects of law enforcement confer upon me the status of expert in anything. However, the laying of such a charge in the circumstances described caused many eyes to roll.
The obvious conclusion to draw in all of this is that the findings of the Dunphy inquiry, unfortunate as that incident was, did not sit well with certain persons.
None of my former colleagues (and there are many) could understand how obstruction of justice, a serious criminal offence, was an appropriate response to a minor traffic ticket apparently mistakenly issued. Some concluded that it was simply a “COD,” meaning a charge of desperation.
Significant, as well, is the fact that Smyth was suspended without pay following this charge. Courts have consistently taken a dim view of such a draconian measure, which in effect deprives a person of his/her livelihood prior to trial and flies in the face of a presumption of innocence. Moreover, are there not examples of more egregious allegations of police misconduct where no suspension of pay was imposed?
The obvious conclusion to draw in all of this is that the findings of the Dunphy inquiry, unfortunate as that incident was, did not sit well with certain persons. This inquiry cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and fully exonerated Smyth.
It is time for these individuals to carefully reflect upon their actions, declare this apparent vendetta over, and either welcome Smyth back to work or let him get on with his life.
David J. Tough
St. John’s
