Expert accused of ‘speculating without evidence’ at inquest into teen’s death

The lawyer for Winnipeg police told an inquest Friday that a use-of-force expert who weighed in on the fatal shooting of teenager Eishia Hudson, by calling the officer’s actions unjust, had made errors of his own.

Kimberly Carswell suggested during her cross-examination of Peter Rampat that he relied too heavily on video evidence of the incident and discounted witness statements in his report into the death of the 16-year-old from Berens River First Nation.

Hudson was shot dead after leading police on a high-speed pursuit that ended with her crashing a stolen Jeep on Lagimodiere Boulevard during the evening rush hour on April 8, 2020.

Rampat’s report determined Const. Kyle Pradinuk was not justified when he fired two bullets at Hudson, who began to reverse the Jeep as officers swarmed the vehicle.

Pradinuk has testified he believed a fellow officer was at risk of serious injury or death if he did not intervene, but Rampat said it is his belief that Hudson was only trying to evade police and nobody was in “imminent danger” at the time of the shooting.

“You cannot know her motive,” Carswell said. “So this is all hindsight, Mr. Rampat. This is assessment of actions when you’re speculating without evidence.”

The lawyer questioned why his report did not address all of the evidence gathered by the Independent Investigation Unit of Manitoba, including statements from civilian witnesses and police who said they, too, believed Hudson was moments away from running over an officer.

Instead, the report is based primarily on video evidence captured by a bystander, which shows the reverse lights on the Jeep were active and the vehicle was moving away from officers when the shooting occurred.

Carswell argued the video could not have captured Pradinuk’s perspective.

“The reasonableness of his perception that there was a threat that existed is backed up by numerous witness statements which say the same. How did you not deal with that in your report?” she asked.

“Please tell me why you discounted the evidence of the witnesses who… provide context to the reasonableness of Const. Pradinuk’s evidence.”

“You cannot know her motive… So this is all hindsight, Mr. Rampat. This is assessment of actions when you’re speculating without evidence.”

Rampat said he reviewed and considered the witness statements but felt the video provided the most objective account of the incident.

His approach directly contradicted that of IIU investigator Chris Butler, who found Pradinuk was justified in the shooting.

In his report to the inquest, Butler made no reference to the video and instead relied largely on officer and witness statements — something Rampat criticized.

“If you’re going to examine evidence, you should examine all of it, and not exclude a very big piece of evidence that is contrary to the evidence that the officer’s giving here,” Rampat said Thursday.

Carswell used the same logic against him during her cross-examination one day later.

“You did not deal with the contrary evidence of any of the civilian witnesses whose perception was the same as Const. Pradinuk’s,” she said.

Carswell also took issue with Rampat’s suggestion that officers should not have rushed toward the vehicle immediately following the crash.

He testified the officers placed themselves at risk and would have been better off maintaining their distance.

“You did not deal with the contrary evidence of any of the civilian witnesses whose perception was the same as Const. Pradinuk’s.”

Carswell argued the collision occurred at a busy intersection, and police had an obligation to end the pursuit and ensure civilians did not come to harm.

The inquest must determine whether the use of force against Hudson was justified and whether systemic racism played a role in her death. Provincial court Judge Margaret Wiebe, who cannot assign blame, is expected to issue a final report.

The inquest will take a break and resume June 16.

tyler.searle@freepress.mb.ca