Faced with taking two years to analyze more than 1,600 hours of video footage in order to identify those involved in the Stanley Cup riots, the Vancouver Police will spend $160,000 to have the job done in about three weeks by experts at the University of Indianapolis.

Police Chief Jim Chu announced Wednesday that the 50-member riot-investigation team will be working with the non-profit Law Enforcement and Emergency Services Video Association (LEVA) at the National Digital Multimedia Evidence Processing Lab at the University of Indianapolis.

Sgt. Dale Weidman, who is in charge of the riot-investigation team, said using the processing lab could save the department millions of dollars in officers’ time.

So far only two people involved in the riot have been charged. Chu said the police have identified 268 suspects — an increase of 15 per cent over last month.

A total of 41 people have turned themselves in or been brought in by their parents, Chu said.

However, in some cases people have confessed to minor crimes when further investigation shows they were involved in more serious offences.

“Rushing these people into court without a full examination of all the evidence would produce weak cases with acquittals, bad case law and little or no penalties,” said Chu.

“Our diligence and thoroughness will ensure that we lay the highest number of charges and obtain the greatest number of convictions with the most severe penalties,” he said.

“Even though we acknowledge the frustration of those who wish these suspects were already in jail — and we share your frustration — there are many reasons why we must proceed at this pace,” said Chu.

“If you are in favour of speed you are in favour of more acquittals and lighter sentences. If we rush cases to court we risk losing them by being ineffective and inefficient,” he said.

Chu said it would be wrong to compare Canada’s criminal-justice system to that of Britain, which has been wracked by a series of riots beginning Aug. 6.

Two men who tried unsuccessfully to incite rioting in their hometowns using Facebook have already been charged, convicted and jailed.

“Some of you wonder why we can’t act as quickly here as the police and courts appear to be acting in Britain,” said Chu.

“The short answer is: Canada is not Britain. Our laws are different, our courts are different and our riots are different,” he said.

Chu said the police will soon launch a website dedicated to the riot, which will keep the public informed on the progress of the investigation.

The site will include pictures of 150 new suspects and will display videos of suspects the police are seeking the public’s help in identifying.

gbellett@vancouversun.com

Read more: Vancouver police defend pace of riot investigation

Perhaps we should consider what Vancouver Police Chief Jim Chu didn't say in his failed effort to defend his beleaguered force against accusations it's not acting fast enough in its investigation of the Stanley Cup riot.

After all, what he did say seems to have fallen on deaf ears, what with newspaper columnists once again feigning high dudgeon, and with Premier Christy Clark helpfully adding that she's "frustrated" and "angry" about the whole affair.

Had Chu said what he didn't say, perhaps Clark would have realized that her anger is misplaced, that when she points her finger at the police, three fingers are appropriately pointing back at her.

Chu did hint that there is a "detailed answer" as to why the treatment of rioters in Canada and Britain appears to differ, though he then decided people wouldn't be interested in hearing it. That's unfortunate, because the devil is in the details.

And the details in this case concern the process by which people are charged with criminal offences. As is mentioned from time to time, British Columbia is one of three provinces (along with Quebec and New Brunswick) in which the Crown, rather than the police, lay criminal charges. Or more specifically, police prepare a report with the results of their investigation and charge recommendations, and the Crown approves them.

This was not always so. Up until the 1970s, police in B.C. did lay charges, but many of the charges - up to 40 per cent - were ultimately stayed because the police did not provide the Crown with sufficient evidence to prosecute them. This proved to be something of a scandal, and led the province to grant the Crown statutory responsibility for laying charges.

The current practice is not without its critics. Among other things, critics charge that the procedure invites corruption in that it shields from the public the reasons charges are approved or not. Recall the Crown lawyers who fought testifying before the Davies Commission about their reasons for not approving charges against the police in the Frank Paul case.

The current procedure also likely slows the charging process down somewhat because, as has already happened in the riot investigation, the Crown can ask for more information after the police have completed their report. And this means that it might take longer to lay charges in B.C. than in other jurisdictions.

But it doesn't mean it's inappropriate for the Crown to request more information, since the Crown also faces an onerous task. According to the Crown Counsel Policy Manual, the Crown is expected to approve the charges only if there is a substantial likelihood of conviction and, if so, the prosecution is in the public interest.

As it happens, this "substantial likelihood of conviction" test is the highest standard in Canada. Most provinces require a "reasonable likelihood of conviction" before laying charges, though Ontario requires a "reasonable prospect" and Nova Scotia a "reasonable chance" of conviction. The B.C. Crown is permitted to use the lower "reasonable prospect" standard in cases involving high risk, violent or dangerous offenders, but only in those cases.

This means that, all other things being equal, people might be less likely to face charges in B.C. than in other provinces. It also means that the laying of charges might take longer, since the Crown must meet a more stringent evidentiary test before approving them.

Now that said, whether you support or oppose B.C.'s system depends entirely on your perspective. If your primary concern is with reducing the number of people who face charges that are later dropped, then the B.C. approach is for you. But if your primary concern is with charging as many people as possible as quickly as possible, even if the charges may not hold up in court, then the rest of Canada is more to your liking.

It appears that many people currently favour the latter system, including the frustrated and angry Christy Clark. And if she is so angered by B.C.'s system, then she ought to start pointing fingers at herself and her colleagues in the legislature, since they are the only ones who can change it.

pmcknight@vancouversun.com

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

Read more: Riot investigation, arrests hampered by law

Well, it appears we just don't know how to handle a riot out here in the colonies. So according to newspapers across the country, we ought to turn to the motherland for advice on how things ought to be done.

Never mind that Vancouver's riot was contained to the downtown core of one city while England's riots spread across the country. Or that Vancouver's riot lasted several hours while England's continued for several days.

Or that Vancouver's riot is estimated to have cost several million dollars while England's comes in at several hundred million pounds. Or that no one was killed in Vancouver, while England is dealing with five deaths and several cases of attempted murder, including the attempted murder of police officers.

Never mind any of these facts because they spoil the Canadian media's carefully painted and juxtaposed portraits of the British and Canadian justice systems. By selectively attending to certain British media reports, some in the Canadian media tell us that the British police and courts have already arrested, charged, tried and sentenced the rioters to jail, while here in the colonies, Dudley Do-Right is still trying to mount his horse.

Now if true, Britain's record of handling rioters would be the envy of Cuba, China and every other totalitarian regime that prides itself on its swift and sure justice system, while leaving antiquated concepts such as due process and the rule of law to dusty old texts about English law.

But it isn't true, as even a cursory review of British media reports reveals. To be sure, British authorities were under enormous pressure to act swiftly last week, given that the riots were ongoing and spreading, and this circumstance - which did not exist in Vancouver - led to several thousand arrests and many charges. It also led to courts sitting overnight and on Sunday, though a report in The Independent emphasized that most cases heard Sunday had nothing to do with the riot.

Indeed, British justice has not been nearly as swift or severe as you've been led to believe. According to a report in the Guardian newspaper, the majority of cases that were resolved quickly involved simple charges like burglary and possession of stolen goods, where defendants were caught red-handed and pleaded guilty.

The courts therefore had only to conduct sentencing hearings, which are typically a lot less time-consuming than trials. Many of the more serious charges will proceed to trial, which could take in excess of a year, and which, unlike sentencing hearings, might well lead to acquittals of the accused. So much for the swiftness of the British justice system.

And as for British justice being severe: Whatever you do, don't tell the Brits that. According to reports in the Telegraph and the Mail, many of the rioters were minors, which means they are subject to "referral orders" - restorative-justicebased non-custodial orders similar to Canadian diversion programs - and won't spend any time in jail.

Such orders can be entirely appropriate, though they certainly don't fit with the picture of rioters doing hard time. Consequently, everyone from Prime Minister David Cameron to Metropolitan Police Deputy Assistant Commissioner Stephen Kavanagh to British tabloid columnists have condemned this ostensibly light treatment of the rioters.

The belief that rioters are getting off easy is so pervasive that grandstanding politicians have proposed truly Draconian extra-judicial measures, including removing rioters' benefits, naming and shaming youth rioters and, most egregiously, evicting rioters' entire families from council housing.

This practice of punishing families for the misdeeds of one member, otherwise known as the North Korean approach, could, as a report in the Telegraph details, mean evicting a charity worker and her eightyear-old daughter because of the behaviour of her 18-yearold son.

Fortunately, though, such evictions are almost certainly illegal, and if necessary, the British courts - those selfsame institutions that Canadians believe are so tough on rioters - will declare them illegal. So much for the severity of the British justice system.

Contrary to the picture painted by the Canadian media, then, the British and Canadian experiences in the aftermath of the riots are remarkably similar, even though the riots themselves were markedly different: Justice officials in both countries have faced enormous pressure to be swift and severe, and have been attacked for failing to be swift and severe enough.

But the media-manufactured myth that they're doing everything right and we're doing everything wrong is found only in Canada.

Pity.

pmcknight@vancouversun.com

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/jus...#ixzz1VWOhdCd9