"Crown prosecutors are often asked to provide a recommendation as to whether criminal charges are warranted based on the evidence available. We take this responsibility seriously and recognize the increased public interest when allegations of criminal conduct are made against police officers.

In order to recommend charges, we must be satisfied that there is a reasonable likelihood of conviction in proceeding with a prosecution. This test is applied to all cases, regardless of who the potential accused may be.

The process we follow is also the same in all cases. Before an opinion is released, it must be reviewed by an Assistant Chief Crown Prosecutor and myself. In this case, knowing the increased public scrutiny this decision would attract, I took the extra step of selecting several senior Crown prosecutors within my office to review the opinion to see if there was anything missed in our initial analysis of the evidence.

The Crown prosecutors in my office who reviewed this file were unanimous in their opinion that there was no reasonable likelihood of conviction and that we therefore would not recommend charges.

We reviewed numerous statements from witnesses who saw the complainant with the police officer prior to and during what was depicted in newspaper photographs. This included police witnesses from a number of different police agencies and a number of independent civilian witnesses.

In assessing any potential prosecution, we are required to consider what evidence a criminal court would most likely accept at trial. In our opinion, the evidence available would most likely lead to the following conclusions:

The Criminal Code states that police officers are entitled to use force in execution of their duties, depending on the circumstances.

Therefore, in determining whether the use of force by the police officer was excessive, we need to know what happened that led to the use of force, not just what happened in the seconds during which the force was used.

The photographs taken by a local newspaper photographer were reviewed in the course of arriving at this recommendation. However, they capture only seconds of what took place.

The photographs do not tell the entire story and certainly offer no information on what events led up to the use of force by the police officer.

We know that the complainant was handcuffed at the time of the use of force. However, handcuffed people are not necessarily harmless.

We considered all of this in light of the volatile situation that existed on Whyte Avenue that night. Crowds had rioted there on previous occasions with significant damage being done to the area. Bonfires had been lit by an unruly crowd. The unique dynamics of that evening cannot be ignored.

During a criminal trial, it would be the Crown's responsibility to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the force used by the EPS officer was excessive, given the circumstances. We do not believe we can meet this burden of proof and accordingly there is no reasonable likelihood of conviction.

We must have a reasonable likelihood of conviction before we recommend or proceed with a prosecution. Demanding that evidence meet this stringent criteria helps prevent innocent people from being charged and convicted for crimes they did not commit."