Naveen Polapady’s incident reminds some people of Lucky Moose shopkeeper, David Chen who became a symbol of property-defence rights in 2009 after being charged for tying up a shoplifter. Chen was acquitted and later visited by prime minister Stephen Harper. Aaron Lynett/National Post files
Megan O'Toole, National Post
Wednesday, Apr. 25, 2012
Naveen Polapady’s story struck all the right notes to inspire a collective sense of public outrage.
The owner of Maroli restaurant, an Indian eatery on Toronto’s bustling Bloor Street West, said he was defending his property when he hurled masala spice powder into the face of a man he believed was trying to break into his car.
So when news emerged this month that police had charged Mr. Polapady — since dubbed the “spiceman” — with assault in the August 2011 incident, a furor ensued. Pundits drew parallels with the case of David Chen, a Chinatown grocer in Toronto whose arrest for tying up a repeat shoplifter prompted Bill C-26, a proposed piece of legislation that aims to expand citizen’s arrest powers. The Prime Minister’s Office even called Mr. Polapady to express support.
But the story now appears more complex, especially after police arrested the man who broke into Mr. Polapady’s car — and it proved to not be the man who was spiced.
“Some of our own 14 Division officers have recently fallen victim to inaccurate reporting wherein the alleged events of ongoing investigations are suspiciously one-sided,” Superintendent Mario Di Tommaso fumed in an open letter to the community condemning the “tabloid-style reporting” surrounding the Polapady case, which returns to court Thursday.
“I would ask that our residents and communities be mindful and even critical when reading these articles, and to remember that there are always two sides to every story, and that sometimes police are not in a position to justify and defend their actions due to the ongoing judicial process.”
Supt. Di Tommaso, who expanded on his concerns at a meeting this month between 14 Division officers and members of the community, pointed out there was no evidence to incriminate the man whom Mr. Polapady confronted on Aug. 21, 2011.
The story began that morning around 8, in a parking lot behind Maroli. As Mr. Polapady tells it, he saw a man lurking in the parking lot whom he believed had broken into his car days earlier, stealing a cellphone and other electronics. Prosecutors are expected to allege Mr. Polapady was lying in wait for the man, an accusation he has publicly denied.
A scuffle ensued, caught on Mr. Polapady’s security camera. Footage of the altercation aired on CBC shows Mr. Polapady wielding a broomstick as he exchanges blows with a man wearing a backpack and baseball cap. Mr. Polapady says he also threw masala spice into the man’s face. Eventually the pair break apart and the man in the baseball cap hops on a bicycle and rides away.
Police say Mr. Polapady inflicted significant damage, sending the man to hospital with head injuries requiring six stitches.
Mr. Polapady subsequently contacted police, who questioned the man in hospital but released him after finding no evidence to lay charges. That night, just after 7, police instead charged Mr. Polapady with administering a noxious substance, assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm.
Months later, after Mr. Polapady opted to share his story with the news media, police made another arrest on April 12. Jason Mitchell, 40, of no fixed address, has since pleaded guilty to theft and possession of property obtained by crime in the Polapady case. Mitchell was not the man Mr. Polapady scuffled with on that date.
Police are concerned, however, that this significant development has been largely overlooked as the public continues to rally behind the spiceman.
“The only person who has spoken about this case is a man who has been charged with three criminal offences, and what has been noteworthy is that virtually everyone has taken what he said at face value,” Toronto police spokesman Mark Pugash noted. “I think there are significant dangers in doing that.”
‘I’ve got support from all over Canada and abroad, Norway and Australia. It’s moral support’
Mr. Polapady, who gave several media interviews when the story of his arrest broke, says he will not discuss the case until the court process concludes. Contacted by the Post, he declined to comment on whether he believed there were two thieves targeting his property — the one police arrested and the one Mr. Polapady fought — or whether the second man was simply the victim of a mistaken identity.
“It’s been really stressful for my family, for my business,” Mr. Polapady said in a brief interview Wednesday. “I’ve got support from all over Canada and abroad, Norway and Australia. It’s moral support … it’s helpful.”
Mr. Polapady returns to court Thursday to continue ongoing negotiations with the Crown, during which the defence will request a stay of proceedings.
But if the matter ultimately goes to trial, defence lawyer Calvin Barry said, “he’s going to be asserting self-defence, defence of property, defence of his business and his home.”
Mr. Barry lauded the potential of Bill C-26, which would simplify the rules on defence of persons and property, and allow citizens to arrest someone they find committing a criminal offence in relation to their property within a reasonable time.
“That would be helpful for everyone: For the prosecutors, for the police, for accused persons, for the public, for juries, judges,” Mr. Barry said. “[The existing] provisions in the Criminal Code are very outdated and somewhat archaic.”
But York University criminal procedure professor James Stribopoulos says cases such as Mr. Polapady’s underscore the bill’s risks, particularly when there is a temporal disconnect between when an offence is committed and when a citizen attempts to intervene.
“I think the case brings into sharp focus the potential danger of giving the citizenry more expansive arrest powers,” Mr. Stribopoulos said. “It’s going to create a greater danger of … mistakes.”
National Post
• Email: motoole@nationalpost.com
