As he closed the Crown’s arguments on Wednesday, Richard Fowler addressed what has become – to some extent – the elephant in the courtroom: in the absence of conclusive evidence one way or the other, what it would mean if Debbie Johnston did was it falling over McCullum’s leg? Fowler said the evidence still shows McCallum falsely accused Johnston of a crime she did not commit. “This is not a trial about whether or not Mr McCallum’s leg was hit,” Fowler told Surrey District Court Judge Reginald Harris. “If, in fact, Mr McCallum’s leg was struck, he deliberately exploited what was an apparent accident by deliberately characterizing it as something it was not.”
“There is another side”
McCallum is charged with public mischief under a section of the Criminal Code that makes it an offense to lie to the police to see someone charged with a crime they did not commit. The charge stems from a confrontation that began when Johnstone yelled “Give up McCallum” after spotting the mayor driving through a Save-On-Foods parking lot in her Mustang convertible on Sept. 4, 2021. A CCTV video screenshot captures the moment former Surrey mayor Doug McCallum claimed Debi Johnstone tripped over his leg in September 2021. (CCTV Save-on-Foods) Johnstone is a member of Keep The RCMP in Surrey, a group that opposes McCallum’s plans to replace Surrey’s RCMP detachment with a municipal police force. The defense had highlighted the toxic politics surrounding the issue, arguing that Johnston, in particular, had railed against McCallum and his advisers. Fowler acknowledged the background of the case. “It is absolutely clear that swearing at a public official is inexcusable in any context,” he said. “But there is another side… no animosity can justify making false statements to the police.”
“Not just reckless exaggeration”
At the heart of the Crown’s case are a series of statements McCallum made in a 911 call and a videotaped statement to police. Both contradict facts caught on CCTV of the incident. Fowler claimed the 78-year-old used the word “pinned” at least 11 times in his testimony to suggest Johnstone trapped him in his vehicle. In fact, the video shows him standing next to a small traffic island, nowhere near his car. McCallum also told police he believed Johnston may have “snapped the tyre” as she “torn away” from him, where Fowler said CCTV footage shows her making a hard right turn at low speed. Defense lawyer Eric Gottardi, left, walks outside the Surrey court next to special prosecutor Richard Fowler. The two men are on opposing sides in the public trial of former Surrey mayor Doug McCallum. (Justine Boulin/CBC) McCallum’s lawyers argued that confusion and misconception are to be expected as a result of a sudden shock, such as run over by car and that embellishment does not render the substance of the complaint false. But Fowler said McCallum waited two hours to make the 911 call and another two hours before giving his personal statement. He said the former mayor had time to think about his words. “They weren’t just reckless exaggerations. They weren’t statements made in the heat of the moment with no time to reflect on what happened.” He said McCallum was also not “a person without some level of complexity”. “Of course he was — he was running the city of Surrey. And he was dealing with very important issues. That’s also part of the context when you come to analyze the statement.”
“I really want to chase her”
The filings in the case include years of RCMP complaints between McCallum and members of Keep The RCMP in Surrey, with allegations made against each side by the other. On the stand, Johnstone said she called McCallum a “scaly-faced mummy” and was confronted by evidence that she had called members of Surrey Police Service “sluts” at another demonstration. Debi Johnstone, who was seen at a protest, was accused by former Surrey mayor Doug McCallum of running over his leg. She was the first witness to take the stand at his public trial. (Submitted by Debi Johnstone) The defense argued that those interactions showed the former mayor had grounds to allege criminal harassment against the 66-year-old. Instead, Fowler said the story shed new light on McCallum’s words to police as he spoke to the officer who took his statement: “I really want to go after her.” “We don’t know exactly what his emotional state was at the time — whether he was angry, hurt or just fed up with Ms. Johnston or others he felt were like her,” Fowler said. “The means he chose to pursue Mrs Johnston was to make false statements to the police.”
“McCallum is not trying to waste police resources”
Judge Harris asked a series of questions about the law and the circumstances of the case. At one point, he wondered if the fact that McCallum didn’t try to fake a limp might work in his favor, because that’s what one would expect from someone who lied to tap his leg. Earlier in the day, defense attorney Eric Gottardi outlined the legal considerations and precedents Harris will have to consider as he weighs the evidence in the case. He said there aren’t that many cases involving the subsection of the Penal Code under which McCallum was charged. Solicitor Richard Peck is pictured heading into Surrey Crown Court. The veteran defender led the team representing Doug McCallum at his public misdemeanor trial. (Justine Boulin/CBC) Among the cases he highlighted were those involving false allegations of assault made by an inmate against a corrections officer and a false claim that a car had been stolen. The case involving the inmate was dismissed after a judge concluded there was evidence an assault had been committed, but the inmate did not know there was a defense to assault. In the case involving the stolen van, the man’s story was so “far-fetched” that police did not investigate, but a judge found he could be convicted of attempted public disorder anyway. Gottardi said the purpose of the public mischief law is to protect people from false accusations and ensure police time isn’t wasted on wild goose chases. “McCallum is not trying to waste police resources or silence an opponent,” Gottardi said. “He simply reported very troubling behavior by Ms. Johnston in a long line of troubling behavior by Ms. Johnston.” Harris said he expects to issue a verdict the week of Nov. 21.
