Toronto cop rapes masseuse, says he's victim

[A_Britishcolumbian]

and it seems he has chosen to make this ridiculous claim because he's afraid of going to jail. coward.

TORONTO - More than four years after sexually assaulting a frightened massage worker, former Toronto cop Mandip Sandhu was back in court trying to appeal his conviction and his unusually tough jail sentence.

Because no police officer wants to take his chances in prison.

Sandhu had offered a novel defence when he went on trial — even though it was common police practice to work as pairs, the then 37-year-old was conducting a solo bylaw inspection of a North York spa in June 2010 when the immigrant massage worker fellated him against his will.

And despite his badge, his gun and his bigger size, Sandhu didn’t manage to stop her. He was shocked, he said. “I was not expecting anything like that to happen. But I did nothing to stop it. It was a lapse in judgment.”

But Ontario Court Judge John Moore believed the victim’s more credible story: That Sandhu had recorded her name and information in his police memo book to intimidate her and then forced her to perform oral sex. The compelling evidence against him was not only her testimony, but his DNA found in the semen she had spit into a washcloth and the notes found in his office drawer at 31 Division where her name, date of birth and home address had been written and then crossed out.

“To suggest that (Sandhu), a 12-year veteran who is larger, stronger, armed, a police officer while on duty and in the lawful execution of that duty is somehow rendered helpless and hopeless in the hands of (the massage worker) defies the boundaries of common sense and credulity. The suggestion is preposterous, ludicrous and beyond belief,” Moore said in his reasons for judgment in February 2013.

Sentenced in June 2013 to 15 months imprisonment, Sandhu has been free on bail pending his appeal.

Sitting with several supporters, he listened intently as his lawyer, Alan Gold, pleaded his case: That the trial judge should not have admitted the evidence from his seized notebook because it violated his Charter right to privacy and his right against self-incrimination and were illegally handed over to the Special Investigations Unit.

And because the warrant to seize his DNA referenced the notebook, it should be thrown out as well, his lawyer told Superior Court Justice Brian O’Marra.

The trial judge had ruled these weren’t really police notes but Sandhu’s way of intimidating his victim into performing the sex act and because they were “a potential instrument” of his crime, they weren’t protected under the Charter. Moore also found that while there’s a police regulation that officers under investigation don’t have to turn their notes about the incident over to the SIU, these scratched out notations of her name and address didn’t fall within the definition of “police notes.”

Sandhu’s lawyer insisted the judge erred on both counts and his mistakes were “so significant” that a new trial must be held. “The judge didn’t do the best job of judging,” Gold said. “My client didn’t get the trial to which he was entitled.”

Crown attorney John McInnes disagreed. Writing the victim’s name and address in his memo book can’t be classified as official police notes, he said, especially when it was followed by oral sex that was “clearly not part of the duties of a police officer by any stretch.”

Even if the judge refuses to quash his conviction or order a new trial, Sandhu wants to do his time in the community and not in jail.

His lawyer complained that his 15-month sentence is a harsh and excessive punishment given that he “was dismissed from the police force and has no other skills, training or means of financially supporting his family,” he and his family have suffered extreme public shame and humiliation, and he faces physical harm if he’s incarcerated.

But the prosecutor says house arrest just doesn’t go far enough to reflect society’s interest in denunciation and deterrence. And he’s right — a police officer who breaches his position of authority to violate a vulnerable member of the public deserves to go where the other criminals go — and that’s directly to jail.

O’Marra has reserved his decision.

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/12/09/to ... picks=true

[oneh2obabe]

You are adept at twisting events to suit your agenda. First of all, he didn't rape the masseuse - he forced her to perform oral sex. Second, from the article ...

“To suggest that (Sandhu), a 12-year veteran who is larger, stronger, armed, a police officer while on duty and in the lawful execution of that duty is somehow rendered helpless and hopeless in the hands of (the massage worker) defies the boundaries of common sense and credulity. The suggestion is preposterous, ludicrous and beyond belief,” Moore said in his reasons for judgment in February 2013.

[hozzle]

Rape
[reyp]
noun
1.
unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the victim.

I'm not understanding why the OP is considered twisting things?

[maryjane48]

You are adept at twisting events to suit your agenda. First of all, he didn't rape the masseuse - he forced her to perform oral sex. Second, from the article

forced and rape are 2 different things? this cop should do 15 years not 15 months , and it should be in gen pop .

[oneh2obabe]

The police officer wasn't charged with rape - he was charged with sexual assault which resulted in the 15 month sentence.

[KL3-Something]

The article reads more like an opinion piece than a piece of objective reporting.

[wanderingman]

The article reads more like an opinion piece than a piece of objective reporting.

really I don't see any opinion its just states the facts that were recorded in court.The EI cop was obviously a scum bag and we don't need cops like him but I will say I doubt this was this overseas virgins first rodeo either

[Glacier]

The police officer wasn't charged with rape - he was charged with sexual assault which resulted in the 15 month sentence.

There's no such thing as rape in Canadian law, so it's not like they could have charged with with rape. Rape is considered too charged a word, so the legal system uses sexual assault instead.

[wanderingman]

oneh2obabe wrote:
The police officer wasn't charged with rape - he was charged with sexual assault which resulted in the 15 month sentence.
There's no such thing as rape in Canadian law, so it's not like they could have charged with with rape. Rape is considered too charged a word, so the legal system uses sexual assault instead.

Of course this dead beat EI cop was not charged with Rape?? He never raped the hooker massage women He forced her to give him a *bleep*. BIG BIG difference

[Hassel99]

Of course this dead beat EI cop was not charged with Rape?? He never raped the hooker massage women He forced her to give him a *bleep*. BIG BIG difference

There is no criminal offence in Canada called "rape" it is all under the legal umbrella of Sexual Assault. There is no legal difference between forcing intercourse and forcing fellatio.

All of this info was posted in this thread, but I figured it could be reposted as obviously folks missed it.

[erinmore3775]

H99 is correct. Forum contributors should read the following summary of the criminal code. The charge rape does not exist in the Canadian Criminal Code.

http://www.sexassault.ca/criminalprocess.htm

The officer was correctly charged under section 265 and 266. It would also seem that the "notebook" evidence and the semen evidence were correctly allowed as evidence by the judge as indicated by the evidence admission summary of the code.

I believe that his conviction will stand, but that the Appeal Court may increase the length of his sentence to perhaps two years or more.

[hozzle]

po-tay-toe, puh-tah-toe... he raped in the real world and sexually assaulted her in the eyes of the courts. what are we debating about?

[wanderingman]

po-tay-toe, puh-tah-toe... he raped in the real world and sexually assaulted her in the eyes of the courts. what are we debating about?

simply not true. In the real world he sexually assaulted her he never raped her and in the eyes of the court he sexually assaulted her

[hozzle]

simply not true. In the real world he sexually assaulted her he never raped her and in the eyes of the court he sexually assaulted her

So the definition of rape is incorrect? Just because the law chooses to use the term sexual assault does not mean a rape did not occur.

Are we really gonna going to look at the world thru rose colored glasses, alla Bill Clinton ;)

Edit: Are we questioning the alleged act or the potential sentence?

[wanderingman]

So the definition of rape is incorrect? Just because the law chooses to use the term sexual assault does not mean a rape did not occur.

Are we really gonna going to look at the world thru rose colored glasses, alla Bill Clinton ;)

Edit: Are we questioning the alleged act or the potential sentence?

Iam sorry you do not know the definition of rape. cant help u in that matter
try going to school or?

This cop definitely never raped her. he forced her to give him a *bleep* AKA sexual assault
A *bleep* is not RAPE what part of rape do you not understand???