Neall Epstein has lodged serious allegations against both SPVM (Service de Police de la Ville de Montréal) and the DPCP (Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales), contending that they botched their duties, smeared his reputation and instigated several years of suffering in the aftermath of his arrest. Epstein is demanding $117,000 in both moral and punitive damages.
The crux of this legal controversy originates from events that took place in spring of 2021. The suburban tranquillity of a Beaconsfield street was shattered as Epstein and several neighbours reported reckless driving by Michael Naccache. According to the complaints, Naccache not only drove carelessly in the presence of playing children but allegedly escalated to threats of causing them harm.
The lawsuit further alleges that Epstein was physically shoved by Ari, Naccache’s brother. Yet, in a twist of events, it was Epstein who found himself apprehended by the Montreal police.
As the case unfolded in court last spring, presiding Justice Dennis Galiatsatos delivered a withering judgment. In his view, the Montreal police had blatantly disregarded contradictory evidence and the testimony of multiple eyewitnesses. The only transgression he could attribute to the accused was flashing an obscene gesture during a heated dispute.
Justice Galiatsatos also scrutinized the prosecution’s discernment, chastising it for squandering court resources on a trifling matter amidst pressing backlog and a scarcity of court time.
Epstein’s lawsuit, initiated by his attorney Marc-Andre Landry, argues that the justice system’s protective measures crumbled, plunging his client into two years of torment and accruing considerable financial fees.
Legal precedent establishes that the prosecution is immune from lawsuits, provided it initiates a trial in good faith. However, clear instances of negligence can open the doors for a lawsuit against a former defendant.
Marc-Andre Landry clarifies, “The DPCP can be held accountable when they fail to execute their duty appropriately and when their actions demonstrate gross negligence or unreasonability. This could result in the DPCP having to compensate a falsely accused individual.”
As of now, these assertions of negligence remain unproven in the court of law.
