Former cop Perry Dunlop sentenced to 30 more days for contempt

Last Updated: Wednesday, September 3, 2008 | 4:15 PM ET

(http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/09/03/ot-dunlop-080903.html)

CBC News

Former Cornwall police officer Perry Dunlop has been sentenced to another 30 days in jail for criminal contempt of court after refusing to testify at an Ontario public inquiry.

The sentence was handed down Wednesday in divisional court in Toronto, where Dunlop appeared without a lawyer, supported by his wife, Helen Dunlop, and dozens of others who rallied outside the courthouse carrying placards.

Dunlop was first charged with civil contempt of court after he refused to answer questions while on the stand at the inquiry last September and October. He said he had no faith in the justice system.

He was convicted in December on the civil charge and has spent six months in jail as a result, as well as 17 days in custody prior to his first court appearance.

He was further charged with criminal contempt of court after he disobeyed a judge's order in January to go back to the inquiry and testify.

The inquiry is looking into the response of institutions to allegations that dozens of children were sexually abused within the community starting in the late 1950s.

Dunlop could have been sentenced to up to 18 months for the criminal charge.

However, on Wednesday, the attorney general argued that while Dunlop needed to be punished for ignoring the court, he had already spent a significant amount of time in jail.

In addition, Dunlop could have shortened his civil sentence by testifying at the inquiry, but he could not do that for the criminal sentence.

Crown prosecutor David Humphries called the 30-day sentence "a fair and just decision."

Helen Dunlop said she would have preferred that her husband come home immediately.

"But he can do 30 days standing on his head," she said.

Had Dunlop not gone to jail at all, then other witnesses called by the inquiry might have also refused to testify, inquiry counsel Peter Engelmann said.

"Fortunately, that has not been the case," he added.

Dunlop was considered a key witness at the inquiry, as he was involved in the abuse investigations since 1993. That was when he brought a former altar boy's sexual abuse complaint to the Children's Aid Society after overhearing that the matter was going to be dropped in exchange for a $32,000 payment to the complainant by the local Catholic diocese.

Story comments

Sort: Most recent | First to last | Most recommended

Jim Duncan wrote:Posted 2008/09/04 at 6:21 PM ET

I watched the Inquiry on internet and did see Perry Dunlop on the stand and he asked to read a statement he prepared about his involvement in the matter. The justice refused to allow to have him read the stateememt. Also another police officer who was involved in the investigation has refused to testify and has not been sent to jail. She claimed it would be detremental to her health. This inquiry seems to be run very inconsistently and is a joke at tax payers expence.

Recommendthis comment Recommend this comment Report abuse

WadeThroughIt wrote:Posted 2008/09/04 at 2:27 PM ET

Please don't get me wrong, whatamess. I agree that there are indeed guilty parties still at large. I also fully understand the purpose and powers (or lack thereof) of this inquiry.

My point, however, is that Dunlop's crusade did turn into a witch hunt back in the late 90s (I was there, in Cornwall, trying to get into the grocery store, being physically held back by supporters yelling at me to listen to them; yes, they physically held my arm to get my attention), and innocent people were named. Rumours were crazy. The Standard Freeholder ran a story saying that Jacques Leduc had committed suicide, and when they called his home for a comment, he answered the phone. Any man with any degree of success in Cornwall was being accused by those who were jealous of their success. It was entirely out of control.

At the time, Dunlop and some of his buddies were bragging that they were doing all kinds of work/research on this, and would be paid handsomely by the Gov't once they were "proven" right. Then, more recently, one of the victims admitted to fabricating and exaggerating claims, at the insistence of Dunlop with a promise of financial gain in the end. Which taints most of what Dunlop says, which tainted the trials that happened, and which explains why he refuses to speak out now.

In all of this, Dunlop gets his name in the newspaper over and over again (I suspect much to his excitement), victims are victimized all over again, and the guilty go free (or died awaiting charges or trial).

Recommendthis comment Recommend this comment Report abuse

whatamess wrote:Posted 2008/09/04 at 2:01 PM ET

What part of this inquiry do you not understand? Even if Perry testifies, NO ONE that is guilty will ever see the inside of a jail cell. IT IS NOT THE MANDATE of this inquiry! Read the transcripts of Laroque's testimony. That should be enough to end this thing here and now. Besides, when this whole thing started, it was stated that NO ONE would be FORCED to testify.Perry has held his own in this regard, yet the only one punished for it. He has provided all he knows on numerous other occassions. And please..do not continue to believe that this whole mess was a figment of imagination. There are very guikty people still enjoying a hell of a lot of undeserved freedom to carry on.

Canadianoutrider wrote:Posted 2008/09/04 at 11:55 AM ET

Perry Dunlop liquidated everything and got the hell away and as far away from Cornwall in 2000.

Premier Dalton McGuinty established the Cornwall Public Inquiry on April 14, 2005!!!

Five years AFTER Dunlop left Ontario.

Nice to see such a man (Dunlop) have that muc h power to call for an Inquiry!!!

Dunlop didn't have a darned thing to so with calling or establishing an Inquiry (he was long long gone and starting fresh) but the uninformmed continue to blame him!!!

WadeThroughIt wrote:Posted 2008/09/04 at 11:30 AM ET

Dunlop won't testify because about 80% of what he blabbed about years ago was made up, and other people who used to back him up have testified to that.

I think 30 more days looks good on him, for starting what turned into a witch hunt. His meddling and lack of professionalism accomplished 2 things: 1. Guilty men went free or died before going to trial; and 2. Innocent people's lives were ruined because of the lies he and his placard-carrying cronies have told over the years.

If he did testify at this point, I'm not sure he could get his story straight.

Recommendthis comment Recommend this comment Report abuse

Makekun wrote:Posted 2008/09/04 at 11:27 AM ET The Wrong GUY IS IN JAIL

whatever72 wrote:Posted 2008/09/04 at 10:45 AM ET He started this $40 million waste of money and now he doesn't want to talk ?

What a disgrace.

At this point, let him out of jail and lets end this pathetic inquiry into nothing.

Recommendthis comment Recommend this comment Report abuse

MeganJones-Ottaway wrote:Posted 2008/09/04at 10:27 AM ET This is about one of the biggest FRAUDS in Ontario History.

$40 MILLION and still counting!!!

For what purpose???

Check the mandate of this Farce!!!

Recommendthis comment Recommend this comment Report abuse

fathead wrote:Posted 2008/09/04 at 10:16 AM ET Futility is a very hard fight..... From what I have read, it seems Mr Dunlop is a man choosing to abandon the justice system for the lack of justice.

He attempted a fight with the Catholic Church and im sorry to say "that is an unwindable fight" they are very powerful and obviously if members of Cornwall elite are also implicated impossible.

(Liars)..sorry Lawyers are very tactful in manipulating the law.

Not enough evidence to prosecute.....let the child molesters go free and end the charade!

...and Cornwall should fix its self.

Recommendthis comment Recommend this comment Report abuse

Scootch wrote:Posted 2008/09/04 at 8:47 AM ET This is about the egos of lawyers and judges and their little insulated world; care not about about people who's lives have been destroyed... Perry Dunlop called them on it and now is going to jail for it. Typical. Travesty.

dhogan1999 wrote:Posted 2008/09/04 at 8:16 AM ET It's truly astonishing how ignorant of the history of Perry Dunlop the majority of the posters so far are! Pterry Dunlop has ALREADY testified, at multiple inquiries, just like this one! The reason he refuses to testify again is because he sees it as futile (How much more do they expect to learn - I forget, are we on inquiry #3 or 4 now?) and finds the toll that it takes on him and his family to no longer be worth the effort considering the complete lack of results.

want best for canada wrote:Posted 2008/09/04 at 6:36 AM ET marth stewart went to jail when all rich people are doing all the time and nothing happened to brian mulrony his crime was way bigger. yes our justice system many time does make sence.

Sellig wrote:Posted 2008/09/03 at 10:25 PM ET Nick-0: He isn't refusing to testify in a hearing to put child molestors away; he is the one who reported the molestation to the CAS and has since lost his job as a police officer job for reporting and investigating.

What he is refusing to testify in is an inquiry looking at how the justice system failed and to restore faith in the justice system that Mr. Dunlop and others say failed the community. He has been heavily criticized by the Cornwall community for doing what he believed to be the right thing.

Lounger10 wrote:Posted 2008/09/03 at 10:00 PM ET I say that he does what he needs to do and get on with his life. If there are people who are guilty and Perry Dunlop can put them away, I say do it, and move on.

Bytown wrote:Posted 2008/09/03 at 9:02 PM ET meanwhile the real crooks in the cloth are free.

Nick-0 wrote:Posted 2008/09/03 at 8:32 PM E Two3018: Ifyour child was molested and any other information this guy could give the courts to put the guy away for as long as possible, I'm sure you'd be singing a different tune.

If it puts a dangerious criminal behind bars, why is this guy even questioning going up on the stand? He thinks the justice system is a mockery? He's making a mockery of it by his inaction.

wo3018 wrote:Posted 2008/09/03 at 8:26 PM ET I'm shocked by the sentence. Fact is, you can get a peace bond for beating up your wife, a probation for B&E (or multiple B&Es), probation for stealing cars, warnings if you're a youth for everything including assault with a weapon, a fine for drunk driving (plus a driving prohibition) IF you're found guilty, a probation for breaching your probation, a discharge for shoplifting... But I guess refusing to testify when you've already given testimony on a case and are already on the record and are just sick of being hassled with it is a jailable offence. Canada's stance on crime is ludicrous.

Nick-0 wrote:Posted 2008/09/03 at 8:16 PM ET You know, if this guy isn't going to testify against a child molester, and thinks the justice system is a mockery, then he deserves to rot in a cell for contempt of court.

Who does this jackass think he is? He was supposed to be a public defender, he did enough to call Children's Aid on this case and he won't stand in the witness stand? What I think about this guy won't get past the comment filters.