SOMBA K'E/YELLOWKNIFE - The RCMP's lead inspector in an assault case against a fellow Mountie was not put on the witness stand Tuesday because he himself is under a cloud of criminal allegations, as are other police, according to the Crown prosecutor.

Sgt. Andy Ing took the lead role in investigating Const. Jason Muzzerall, who is facing a charge of assault causing bodily harm in relation to an incident in the RCMP detachment on April 18, 2009. A man received a wound to his head in the wee hours of that morning.

In territorial court on Tuesday, Crown prosecutor David McWhinnie decided not to call Ing as a witness. McWhinnie told the court he'd learned a day earlier that Ing, a member of the NWT major crimes unit, and other RCMP are currently facing allegations that they were involved in criminal conduct "some years ago" and not related to the Muzzerall case.

McWhinnie refused to reveal the nature of the allegations to the court as they were unrelated, and he stated he didn't know the details in any event.

"The Crown has essentially no business ... disclosing baseless allegations," said McWhinnie, adding that no criminal charges have been laid and that Ing has passed a polygraph test in relation to the allegations.

He said the allegations are "controversial" within the RCMP, as some officers believe criminal activity happened while some do not.

Muzzerall's lawyer, Robb Beeman, said he wanted to know the nature of the allegations to understand for himself how they may relate to the current case.

"I'm supposed to blindly start this trial knowing that there's ... possibly a cloud behind this investigation," said Beeman.

Judge Bernadette Schmaltz said she believed the allegations were relevant and adjourned the trial for close to two hours so McWhinnie could find out more about the nature of the allegations.

Following the break, Beeman was still pressing for more information. McWhinnie said he would consider telling Beeman about the details of the allegations in private.

Schmaltz later told Beeman that, if need be, he could make an application for adjournment at the end of the scheduled trial, or to recall witnesses. Beeman agreed.

After that was dealt with, the first witness was called - one of the officers involved in the April 18, 2009, incident.

He didn't take notes of the incident in question, but did write notes at other times that night. He said the incident didn't stand out enough for him to take notes that night, and he compiled a report on the incident eight days later, before the complaint was filed in May.

He told the court he was one of at least two officers who responded to Muzzerall's call for back-up near the Gold Range. The officer said it sounded urgent.

The Mountie assisted in arresting the complainant and said he witnessed the man being unco-operative getting into the police truck. His pants fell down and at least two officers were needed to load him into the backseat.

At the detachment, the complainant was brought in through a secure loading bay and into the cell-block area. A video was played of the incident in question during the trial. The man can be seen being brought into the detachment and trying to go one direction while Muzzerall tried to pull him in another direction. Another officer shoved while Muzzerall pulled and the man fell to the ground, hitting his head and leaving a spot on the floor.

The officer said the prisoner, at six-foot-three and approximately 280 to 300 pounds, towered over the five-foot-ten Muzzerall. The prisoner was using his size to lean away and make trouble for Muzzerall, according to the officer.

Beeman argued that the man's feet got tangled up during the process and he fell.

The complainant is scheduled to take the stand as the trial resumes today.

We welcome your opinions. Click here to e-mail a letter to the editor.