ChristianShame.com

A provincial judge pointed out Monday that a fender bender investigation which climaxed with a Feeney warrant and the presence of six police officers to arrest a pastor’s wife has gotten a little out of proportion.

Mr. Justice Lorne Chester was speaking about the case of Deborah Jupp, charged with leaving the scene of a collision Jan. 4, 2007.

City police believe Jupp was the driver of a pickup truck that backed into a parked car and that Jupp drove off without leaving her name and number. Damaged to the car is estimated at $1,500.

Jupp, representing herself, is arguing her right to a speedy trial has been compromised and that the process has been abusive.

The situation came to a climax Feb. 8, 2007, when city police obtained a Feeney warrant to enter the Jupp home at the Victory Baptist Church to arrest Jupp, with six officers present to execute the warrant.

A Feeney warrant allows police to enter a person’s home to make an arrest.

Crown attorney Shonagh Pickens argued Sept. 8 that police made at least a dozen attempts to speak to Jupp and serve her papers, either by telephone, at her work or through her son and husband before obtaining a warrant after all those attempts failed.

City police Const. Peter Sejrup, lead investigator in the case, spent most of yesterday testifying about his attempts to speak to Jupp about the collision.

Sejrup told court two witnesses saw a pickup truck back into the car of Don O’Leary, vice-president of Trent University.

Sejrup testified that one witness told him he exchanged glances with the driver of the truck and followed the truck down the road after the driver sped out of the parking lot.

Sejrup told court the witness had managed to obtain the truck’s licence plate number.

Using that information, plus a description of the driver, Sejrup testified that he tracked the truck to Jupp’s Lansdowne Street home. Jupp’s husband Wayne is pastor at the Victory Baptist Church.

Sejrup testified he asked Wayne who was driving the truck and inquired about the truck’s insurance and ownership.

Wayne, he told court, didn’t want to answer questions.

“He said, ‘I haven’t driven that truck in months,’ and then he closed the door on me,” Sejrup testified.

Sejrup told court he canvassed the neighbours to see if he could confirm a description of the truck’s driver before phoning the Jupp home and warning the pastor that he could be charged with obstructing justice if he continued to avoid answering questions.

Sejrup also testified he called a forensics officer to the home to take pictures of the truck because the evidence was “transient.”

Wayne phoned the police station later that evening, Sejrup told court, and wouldn’t indicate how he could get in touch with his wife.

Two days later Sejrup went on vacation and the investigation was left alone for about two weeks.

When Sejrup returned to work Jan. 22, he once again tried to locate Jupp, he told court.

On a Sunday morning he saw the Jupps, with their son, walking across the property to the church.

As he approached Jupp, he testified, her husband grabbed her by the arm and told her to keep walking and not go with the police.

Sejrup told court he again warned Jupp’s husband that he could be charged with obstructing justice.

“He warned me that I could be arrested for obstructing him,” Sejrup told court.

The pastor had cited a section of the criminal code that prohibits the arrest of a clergy person on a civil charge while that clergy member travels to or from their duties.

Sejrup testified that he phoned the sergeant in charge at the police station, who advised him to stand down and let the family proceed with the service.

In cross-examining Sejrup, Jupp said that Sejrup must have realized that the family was heading to a church service.

Had she been arrested that morning, she said, it would have disrupted the service and cancelled Sunday School.

“The law required you to be arrested as per the warrant,” Sejrup replied. “It could have been dealt with very quickly and easily.”

“It was your intention to cancel that service,” Jupp said.

“No,” Sejrup said, “it was my intention to arrest you.”

Saturday was so busy that he was unable to make it to her home, he testified, and he figured he had a chance of finding her there Sunday.

Sejrup told court he opted to obtain a warrant for Jupp’s arrest rather than obtain a summons.

He had little confidence that a summons would be answered, he testified, after several attempts to speak to Jupp had failed.

Const. Todd Silieff testified he went to Jupp’s Armour Road workplace to serve her papers, but Jupp was on the phone with a customer at the time.

Jupp relayed a message to him through her supervisor that she didn’t want to deal with the matter at work, he testified.

NOTES: Yesterday’s continuation of the case was conducted in the Ontario Court of Justice in Lindsay…. The case resumes Nov. 14.

Cited From:

http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1267896