SOMBA K'E/YELLOWKNIFE
A judge will issue a ruling in October on whether a Yellowknifer reporter obstructed police officers last year while taking photos of them searching a van downtown.

Reporter John McFadden prior to the resumption of his trial Thursday on a charge of obstructing police officers last summer. - Shane Magee/NNSL photo

A three-day trial of John McFadden, 53, ended Friday with Crown prosecutor Annie Piche questioning the reporter followed by closing arguments from Piche and defence lawyer Peter Harte.

McFadden was arrested on July 5, 2015 just before 1 a.m. in front of Shoppers Drug Mart on 49 Street after taking 20 photos over 3.5 minutes of four RCMP officers searching a van for ownership information. The van had licence plates reported as stolen in Alberta and police wanted to confirm a drunken man seen climbing into the driver's seat was its owner, according to testimony from officers.

The testimony of three RCMP officers formed the basis of the Crown case when the trial began June 22 in territorial court before Judge Garth Malakoe. It had been adjourned after the first day until it resumed Thursday afternoon with cross examination of the last officer to take the stand.

Sarah Heaton, a friend of McFadden, testified in his defence. She said McFadden joined a family dinner at her home July 4 before they went to the Black Knight Pub. They had two rounds and had ordered a third when McFadden had left the bar to smoke, Heaton and McFadden testified.

While outside, he saw police vehicles blocking part of the roadway with their emergency lights on. He walked toward the vehicles where McFadden said Const. Christopher Hipolito told him, "What the f--- do you want? You shouldn't be here, get the f--- out of here."

McFadden testified that he walked back toward the bar, muttered that he would get his "f---ing camera."

The remark from the officer, the reporter said, left him frustrated and heartbroken because it came after a period of acrimonious relations with RCMP, including him being barred from a press conference in April 2015.

McFadden said newspaper editors met with the RCMP shortly afterwards and things were getting better with the force's spokesperson. Hipolito's comment reopened the wound, McFadden said.

From there, accounts of what occurred differ.

Police testified McFadden returned a few moments later with a camera and smelled of alcohol. They said he was yelling belligerently, drawing a crowd of about 20 people who "chirped" at police and then leaned into the van's open side doors to take a photo, prompting his arrest.

McFadden said he had moved on the sidewalk when told to do so and was taking photos from about three feet away from the van just before his arrest.

Police had not set up any tape to keep people back and none of the officers testified they gave specific instructions for how far back McFadden should stay from the van.

Piche argued McFadden used his camera to carry out a vendetta against police and common sense suggested that he should have kept farther back.

"It's a disguise to get in the officer's way," she said of the camera, adding that his photos from that night were not newsworthy and were of such poor quality that they show he was drunk.

Unfamiliar with camera

Harte argued McFadden had just recently been given the camera, was unfamiliar with aspects of how it worked and was simply using it "incompetently" that night. He pointed out both McFadden and Heaton testified the reporter had only a couple drinks in the hours leading up to his arrest.

What the photos show became a point of dispute.

Harte hammered the point police testified that a crowd of about 20 had gathered near the van and were a safety concern, yet the photos only show three or four people beyond the officers.

"Are they really there and presenting a hazard?" Harte said in his closing statement.

The officers had said the crowd was there but simply out of sight in the parking area between Shoppers and the Elks Club.

"The fact that we don't see a big crowd in the photographs doesn't mean they are not there," Piche said in her closing statement.

At the heart of the case is whether the police search was interrupted by McFadden.

The charge is of obstructing police in the lawful execution of their duty. Harte contested whether police were legally carrying out their duty, saying they didn't have a warrant to search the van as required under the Motor Vehicles Act. Piche said the officers were justified in carrying out the search for the ownership information.

The officers testified they stopped their search to deal with McFadden, although the ownership information couldn't be found until the van was towed to a secure compound and searched later once its owner was sober. The owner wasn't charged for having the plates reported as stolen. Harte suggested that since police couldn't find the information that night, McFadden didn't obstruct the case.

The judge said his travel schedule means the earliest he could deliver his ruling is Oct. 21.

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