Kingsclear Investigation Report
Commissioner's Notice
September 13, 2007
Mr. Paul E. Kennedy
Chair
Commission for Public Complaints Against
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
P.O. Box 3423, Station "D"
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 6L4
Dear Mr. Kennedy:
I acknowledge receipt of your interim report dated August 10, 2007, following your public interest investigation into allegations of sexual and physical abuse at the Kingsclear Youth Training Centre, in Kingsclear, New Brunswick, file reference 5710-200401.
On September 7, 2007, I reviewed your report which contained a number of findings and recommendations. This notice is provided pursuant to subsection 45.45(2) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) Act.
Generally speaking, I am in agreement with your findings; however, I have some concerns with the following:
1. The deference to the Crown's office in pursuing charges affected the public's perception of the RCMP and may have affected the outcome of the McCann investigation.
First, I agree that our members need to understand that they may have the authority and obligations to make decisions to investigate and lay charges unimpeded by the Crown. The Crown and the police have separate and important roles to play in the administration of justice. As you know, the Crown's advice, as well as their independent determination of whether or not to proceed with charges relative to any criminal case, is based on two factors: the reasonable prospect of a conviction based on admissible evidence, and the public interest. Only in extraordinary cases would the RCMP proceed to lay charges following the Crown's recommendation to the contrary. To do so, in most cases, would not be in the public interest, nor would it serve in the furtherance of the administration of justice.
Second, I do not agree that deference to the Crown may have affected the outcome of the McCann investigation. As you know, our members interviewed and re-interviewed a number of possible witnesses before eventually receiving a complaint many years later. Unfortunately, the fact that the complainants had previously denied having suffered any kind of abuse at the hands of Mr. Clifford McCann, coupled with the complainants' criminal records and/or history of alcohol and drug abuse, affected their credibility to the point where a conviction based on their word alone was highly unlikely. Our members were very much aware of this and Crown's advice only confirmed their view. Deference to the Crown did not affect the outcome of the investigation. The investigation was already concluded when the Crown was consulted.
2. The CPC finds that there is no evidence of a cover-up as defined for the purpose of this investigation involving the RCMP members interviewed. In fact, the CPC finds that the RCMP pressed the Crown to lay additional charges against Mr. Toft and considered hiring its own lawyer to prosecute the charges.
3. The CPC finds that there is no substantiated evidence that members of the RCMP who were interviewed engaged in a cover-up in relation to the RCMP investigations into the allegations against Staff Sergeant McCann.
I agree with these two findings, but am concerned with the inclusion of the words "involving the members interviewed" in the second finding, and "who where interviewed" in the third finding. This leaves open the potential interpretation that there may be evidence suggesting that other members of the RCMP were engaged in a cover-up, which is not consistent with your finding articulated at paragraph 16.1 (Overview of findings):
After examining the facts and verifying the evidence in accordance with its Terms of Reference, the CPC is satisfied that there is no substantiated evidence that members of the RCMP attempted to cover up alleged criminal actions of retired Staff Sergeant Clifford McCann or of sexual and physical assaults by former NBTS custodial and supervisory staff.
I will now address your nine recommendations.
Recommendations 1 and 2
- The CPC recommends that the Commissioner of the RCMP and RCMP Commanding Officers ensure that a mechanism is in place to identify investigations that may become sensitive or of a large scale or both.
- The CPC recommends that appropriate response and accountability mechanisms be put in place at the senior-officer level to enable senior officers to monitor continuously the progress of any sensitive or large-scale investigation and assure the public of transparency, effectiveness and impartiality.
I agree with these two recommendations and would point out that in every division, an officer in charge of Criminal Operations reports directly to the Commanding Officer. The officer in charge of Criminal Operations is to be regularly briefed on all major operations within that division, including sensitive or large scale investigations. The officer in charge of Criminal Operations has a responsibility to keep the Commanding Officer briefed on a regular basis.
In light of your findings and recommendations I will remind Commanding Officers and Criminal Operations Officers of the requirement to have appropriate practices and processes in place to monitor large scale and sensitive investigations.
Recommendation 3
- 3. The CPC recommends that an assessment and follow-up be conducted to determine the actual resource needs of the RCMP "J" Division to ensure that any sensitive and large-scale investigation is conducted without interruption and in a timely and professional manner.
Resource requirements in "J" Division, as well as other divisions are assessed on an ongoing basis, in consultation with our contract partners (provinces/territories/municipalities). It must be recognized that resources are finite, and that there are a number of factors, including vacancy rates and staff turn-over, that need to be considered. Vacancies are being addressed on a number of fronts, including by the RCMP enhancing capacity at our training academy, Depot Division, and by increasing the numbers of recruits.
Recommendation 4
- 4. The CPC recommends that the CO and senior members of the RCMP in a pre-charge screening province ensure that members clearly understand their role in the administration of justice vis-à-vis the Crown to preserve their independence.
As previously above, I agree that our members need to understand that they have the authority and obligation to make decisions to investigate and lay charges unimpeded by the Crown; however, only in extraordinary cases would the RCMP proceed to lay charges following the Crown's recommendation to the contrary.
The three divisions with pre-charge screening are New Brunswick, Québec and British Columbia. I will ask the Commanding Officers of these divisions ("J", "C" and "E") to remind members under their command of their role and authority with respect to the laying of criminal charges independent of the Crown.
Recommendations 5 and 7
- 5. The CPC recommends that the RCMP examine, amend and enforce the "Investigator's Notebook" policy and all policies related to note taking, report writing and documenting to ensure that the policies are operationally effective and that officers adhere to and are continuously trained according to the guidelines.
- 7. The CPC recommends that the various issues associated with note taking, report writing and documenting be addressed through various approaches, including training, policy revisions, internal oversight and monitoring.
We are currently redrafting the policy on "Investigator's Notebooks" which emphasizes the importance of good note taking. The policy sets rules for the care and maintenance of the notebook, the types of notebooks that are acceptable, basic information required, methods of making entries and corrections, and links to retention provisions that are proposed in Recommendation 6.
Efforts are underway to update and standardize the Unit Level Quality Assurances (ULQA) which are meant to assess the quality of all aspects of an investigation including note taking, the quality of documentation and report writing.
Our Learning and Development Branch is working on a new supervisors' course as well as on updating the field coaching course, both of which stress quality note taking and report writing. Moreover, Depot Division has a well-defined Cadet Training Program which stresses and evaluates the quality of note taking and report writing.
I am satisfied that these efforts will address the issue of note taking appropriately.
Recommendation 6
- 6. The CPC recommends that the RCMP examine the policy on notebook retention used by other police agencies to glean best practices applied across the country, especially for officers who are retired, transferred or who voluntarily resign.
The policy development checklist followed by the Operational Policy Section (OPS) requires consultation with the policies and practices of other police agencies. The OPS is currently developing policy on notebooks which will deal with the issues that you have brought to my attention, specifically with respect to turning in all notebooks prior to retirement or resignation, and the time period that these notebooks must then be retained.
Recommendation 8
- 8. The CPC recommends that any sensitive or large-scale investigation into allegations which impact on the community's trust in the RCMP should be tasked to another police service or, at the very least, to a team of RCMP officers from another region or province who would have the appropriate experience and who would be unfamiliar with the member under investigation. This would assist in limiting the perception of bias and ensure that public trust in the RCMP is maintained.
I agree that appropriate policies and practices need to be in place to provide for independent investigations into allegations relating to members or employees of the RCMP.
A number of initiatives are underway to address concerns which have been identified. These include the development of policies specifically addressing the matter of such investigations, and the ongoing pilot project in "E" Division involving the CPC from the outset of investigations.
Recommendation 9
- 9. The CPC recommends that the RCMP improve its internal and external communication strategies for any sensitive or large investigation, adopting a proactive communications approach using modern technologies to clearly demonstrate transparency and the RCMP's accountability to the public.
Once again, I agree and will therefore direct that a review into current policy pertaining to sensitive and large-scale investigations be conducted to ensure that our communication strategies take into consideration the need to demonstrate transparency and accountability to the public, that it is adequate, and that it is being applied consistently RCMP-wide.
Thank you for bringing these very important issues to my attention. I look forward to reading your final report.
Yours sincerely,
William J.S. Elliott