Accused Nunavut sex offender “preyed on his students,” says Crown

Case against former Sanikiluaq teacher and accused child molester Johnny Meeko hinges on he said, they said, arguments. He says his 2012 confession to police was under duress; his complainants say molestation in the classroom was a regular occurence back when they were young. Court proceedings adjourned Dec. 10 and will resume again in April. (FILE PHOTO)

When former Sanikiluaq teacher Johnny Meeko testified in his own defence at his historic sex crimes trial last August, denying all 32 charges against him, he lied to the court.

So says Crown prosecutor Amy Porteous who presented her final arguments on the trial before Justice Neil Sharkey Dec. 9 and Dec.10 at the Nunavut Court of Justice in Iqaluit.

“If you believe [Meeko’s] trial evidence you must acquit him, but I submit you should not believe him. It’s so unreliable it doesn’t raise a reasonable doubt [about his guilt],” Porteous said.

Instead, Sharkey should believe the five-hour recorded police statement, recorded in August 2012 and played at the trial, Porteous said, during which Meeko admits to many of the crimes that six complainants described in court.

“His credibility is basically non-existent after that testimony… I’d ask your honour to see this case for what it is: a teacher who for years and years preyed on his students,” Porteous told Sharkey.

After his arrest, three other complainants came forward with more allegations of sex crimes committed by Meeko while he taught at Nuiyak Elementary School in Sanikiluaq between 1978 and 2007.

All nine complainants — eight females and one male — testified at Meeko’s eight-day judge-alone trial in August.

Meeko’s defence lawyer James Morton submitted his final arguments Dec. 8, telling the court that Meeko truthfully denied all allegations when he testified in court and that local RCMP — whom Meeko called the “fist of God”— pressured Meeko into making false confessions in 2012.

Morton also argued that complainants were influenced by the prospect of financial compensation for alleged suffering, and that complainants’ testimonies differed significantly. The variation of those testimonies, including that the abuse occurred in both private and public settings, renders their evidence unreliable, Morton said.

But Porteous pointed out that none of the complainants spoke to, or were approached by, lawyers about the possibility of financial compensation until well after they filed statements with police.

And it’s “totally plausible,” Porteous said, that a sexual predator would abuse children both in public and in private. Sharkey agreed with Porteous on this point.

“This predatorial behaviour is often done in a brazen context by people who are confident they can get away with it,” the judge said.

The Crown’s case relies heavily on Meeko’s 2012 recorded police statement, and contrasting that with his testimony at trial.

Porteous disagreed with Morton’s argument that Meeko was merely appeasing local police when he confessed to some of the allegations.

She said Meeko couldn’t have been entirely fearful of police because he rejected many suggestions police make in the recorded statement and, at times unprompted, offers information that independently corroborates statements made by complainants.

“He isn’t simply being led through a series of admissions,” Porteous said.

For example, early on in that recorded statement from 2012, while police and Meeko are talking generally about Meeko’s teaching career, Meeko “blurts out, these were troubled kids that charged me,” Porteous said.

Four complainants testified at trial that Meeko abused them during detention for bad behaviour.

And Meeko’s claim of appeasing police because they are non-Inuit authority figures doesn’t hold water, the prosecutor added.

“It doesn’t make much sense for him to claim to be terrified by [police] or compelled to lie to demonstrate respect,” she said.

The Crown’s final submissions spanned three days, starting on Dec. 8 because in addition to final arguments, prosecutor Priscilla Ferrazzi also argued what is called a Similar Fact Evidence application.

The application is used when multiple complainants in the same case testify independently to similar facts.

Those similar facts can be used to corroborate evidence between complainants and to illustrate a pattern of behaviour by an accused.

“The Crown asserts that the similarity in evidence demonstrates a pattern of behaviour on Mr. Meeko’s part of a specific tendency to sexually abuse eight- or nine-year-olds, mostly Grade 3 students, that he was in a student-teacher relationship with at Nuiyak Elementary School,” Ferrazzi explained to media during a court break Dec. 9.

Defence lawyer Morton conceded to the court that the facts are similar, but the Crown must also prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the complainants’ testimonies were not influenced by talking to each other or by general gossip around town.

After lengthy discussions on the topic, Sharkey wondered if it was even possible to establish that the complainants’ stories weren’t influenced by each other because they all come from the same small Belcher Island community.

Sharkey scheduled Meeko’s case to be addressed again on April 4, 2016, but he said he will issue a written decision before then.

If convicted on any of the charges, Meeko’s sentencing date will likely be set on April 4.