Chair's Interim Report – Incident Related to Service

RCMP Act Paragraph 45.42(3)(a)

Vetted version for posting

August 10, 2009

Synopsis

In 2001, Mr. A approached the RCMP to accuse a witness at his criminal trial of having committed perjury. Two criminal investigations were conducted by the RCMP without any charges being laid against the witness. So began a cycle of ongoing communication between Mr. A and the RCMP, which lasted six years and culminated in this public complaint.

On April 20, 2007,¹ Mr. A complained to the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP (Commission) about the conduct of Assistant Commissioner B (now retired) and Chief Superintendent C. In his complaint, he essentially alleges that Assistant Commissioner B failed to respond within a reasonable time to various concerns raised by Mr. A at a 2005 meeting and that Chief Superintendent C sent a facsimile transmission to Mr. A in 2001 that was false and misleading.

The Commission has now reviewed Mr. A's complaint. The purpose of this report is to outline the Commission's findings and recommendations in regard to the RCMP conduct that formed the basis of this complaint.

As required under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act (Act), this complaint was initially investigated by the RCMP. Consistent with the Act, on completion of that investigation, the RCMP Commissioner's delegate sent his Final Report to the complainant summarizing the results of the investigation and any action taken to resolve the complaint. In this case, the RCMP provided the complainant with a Final Report dated March 11, 2009, which did not support any of the allegations.

Mr. A was not satisfied with the RCMP's handling of his complaint, and on April 14, 2009, he asked the Commission to review the matter. The Commission received the investigation documents from the RCMP on June 2, 2009.

Having now completed my review of this complaint, I am of the opinion that the conduct of both Assistant Commissioner B and Chief Superintendent C was not satisfactory in some respects.

Commission's Review of the Complaint

It is important to note that the Commission is an agency of the federal government, distinct and independent from the RCMP. When reviewing a complaint, the Commission does not act as an advocate for either the complainant or RCMP members. Rather, its role is to inquire into complaints independently and to reach conclusions after an objective examination of the information provided.

My findings below are based on a careful review of Mr. A's complaint, as well as nearly 2,000 pages of related material forwarded to me by the RCMP as required by the Act. This material includes information from the two criminal investigation files, letters of opinion from the Crown, various court transcripts, many interview transcripts from the criminal investigations and public complaint investigations, and diverse correspondence.

Summary of the Facts

Some background information is necessary in order to understand Mr. A's allegations. In 1997, D and E came forward to accuse Mr. A of having committed certain sexual offences against them in 1969. Of the three charges laid against him, Mr. A was acquitted of one, another charge was dismissed and, ultimately, he pled guilty to the lesser charge of indecent assault against Ms. E.² As a result of certain testimony given by Ms. D at the 1999 preliminary inquiry, Mr. A filed perjury complaints with the RCMP on March 7, 2001.

Specifically, Mr. A maintains that D perjured herself in her testimony at his preliminary inquiry when she denied having spoken to Crown Attorney F prior to the inquiry. An investigation was conducted by RCMP Sergeant G. A report to the Saskatchewan Crown resulted in a July 4, 2001, decision that no charges would be laid against Ms. D.

Mr. A then approached the Saskatchewan Attorney General on November 4, 2002 requesting a re-investigation into the perjury issue by an investigator outside of Saskatchewan. At the same time, he asked that the conduct of Crown Attorney F and RCMP Sergeant H also be examined, on the basis that they allegedly knew that D perjured herself and yet did not intervene. As well, Mr. A raised a second possible instance of perjury by D and asked that it be investigated. He noted that, in her testimony at trial, she denied having spoken to E, the other alleged victim, yet Mr. A felt that there was sufficient evidence establishing that they had spoken. Attorney General I responded by letter to Mr. A on December 17, 2002 saying that he had reviewed the matter in light of the accusation of prosecutorial misconduct but had determined that there was no justification for a re-investigation by an outside agency. On January 21, 2003, Mr. A submitted a second request for investigation to the Attorney General. Attorney General K who had replaced Mr. I by then, responded on March 4, 2003 saying that he was in agreement with his predecessor that another investigation was unnecessary. He also indicated that the issue of alleged misconduct could be considered in Mr. A's civil lawsuit for malicious prosecution.

On June 5, 2003, Mr. A filed a public complaint against Sergeant G alleging that his criminal investigation into D was flawed. A public complaint investigation was conducted and the RCMP decided to order a new criminal investigation into the allegations of perjury by D and E, as well as possible criminal conduct by F. This second criminal investigation, commenced in December 2003, was conducted by RCMP Sergeant J of the Major Crimes Unit. Sergeant J's investigation was considerably more thorough than that of Sergeant G. Nonetheless, on March 21, 2005, the Saskatchewan Crown again determined that no charges should be laid. The Crown acknowledged that Ms. D's statements may well have been erroneous; however, there was no evidence of an intent to deceive and therefore no likelihood of conviction. Regarding alleged perjury by E,³ the Crown determined that there was insufficient evidence to support this accusation. Finally, the Crown concluded that it was a judgement call whether Crown Attorney F should have intervened and his failure to do so did not amount to criminal conduct. Furthermore, the Crown felt that it was not in the public interest to pursue charges.

Dissatisfied with the continued lack of charges, Mr. A contacted the RCMP and a meeting was set up with Assistant Commissioner B on April 12, 2005. In the course of this meeting, Mr. A asked Assistant Commissioner B to forward Sergeant J's investigation report to the Crown in a province outside of Saskatchewan in order to obtain a second legal opinion regarding whether charges should be laid against D. Mr. A also indicated that he did not want Saskatchewan Justice to be involved in the referral to another province, because he was of the view that the Crown in Saskatchewan was tainted due to its earlier refusal to pursue charges. At the same time, Mr. A also asked Assistant Commissioner B to consider charging Crown Attorney F and retired RCMP Sergeant H for allegedly attempting to pervert the course of justice.

Additionally, at the April 2005 meeting, Mr. A expressed his opinion that Sergeant G's 2001 criminal investigation was deliberately flawed. He asked Assistant Commissioner B why Sergeant G's investigation was so seriously deficient and why such deficiencies were not rectified by supervising officers. Finally, Mr. A requested that Assistant Commissioner B initiate an investigation into Saskatchewan Attorneys General I and K, alleging that they had committed criminal breach of trust for failing to order a re-investigation into D and an investigation into F and Sergeant H.

First Allegation: Assistant Commissioner B failed, for a period of nine months, to respond to the concerns Mr. A raised at their April 12, 2005 meeting.

Facts

On January 19, 2006, nine months after their April 12, 2005 meeting, Mr. A met again with Assistant Commissioner B, along with Chief Superintendent L. Mr. A states that Assistant Commissioner B had accomplished nothing by this time with regard to the myriad issues Mr. A had raised at their earlier meeting.

Between April 12, 2005 and January 19, 2006, Mr. A contacted Assistant Commissioner B regularly, by phone and mail, seeking answers or assurances that his concerns were being looked into. It will be helpful to outline those various communications in order to analyze the timeliness of Assistant Commissioner B's response to Mr. A. The highlights of their communication after the April 12, 2005 meeting are:

• April 18, 2005 – Mr. A wrote to Assistant Commissioner B reiterating points raised at meeting;
• May 20, 2005 – Mr. A wrote to Assistant Commissioner B requesting follow-up;
• June 6, 2005 – Assistant Commissioner B wrote to Mr. A (without answering any of his concerns);
• June 9, 2005 – Mr. A wrote to Assistant Commissioner B (indicating that Mr. A had filed a complaint against F with the Law Society of Saskatchewan and requesting that Assistant Commissioner B send confirmation to the Law Society that Sergeant J's investigation had established that F and D had met prior to the preliminary inquiry);
• July 14, 2005 – Mr. A phoned Assistant Commissioner B and Assistant Commissioner B returned his call the next day (Mr. A asked for a response to his concerns and reiterated that the Law Society of Saskatchewan required evidence of the meeting between F and D) (Assistant Commissioner B indicated that he had not yet decided whether to seek an outside legal opinion regarding perjury charges against D);
• August 15, 2005 – Assistant Commissioner B phoned the Law Society of Saskatchewan to find out what they needed;
• August 17, 2005 – Mr. A wrote to Assistant Commissioner B (raising the same points they discussed in their July 15, 2005, phone conversation);
• September 14, 2005 – Mr. A wrote to Assistant Commissioner B (complaining that Assistant Commissioner B had not answered any of his questions and had not yet provided the requested information to the Law Society of Saskatchewan);
• October 5, 2005 – Mr. A phoned Assistant Commissioner B on or about October 5, 2005 and left a message with his replacement, Chief Superintendent L, who later returned his call;
• October 31, 2005 – Mr. A wrote to Assistant Commissioner B (indicating that he was still waiting for a response from Assistant Commissioner B regarding his concerns and still waiting for the requested information to be forwarded to the Law Society of Saskatchewan);
• November 16, 2005 – Mr. A phoned Assistant Commissioner B;
• November 18, 2005 – Assistant Commissioner B phoned Mr. A (confirming that he was going to send the requested information to the Law Society of Saskatchewan);
• December 16, 2005 – Mr. A phoned Assistant Commissioner B, who returned his call on December 20, 2005;
• January 4, 2006 – Assistant Commissioner B wrote the Law Society of Saskatchewan providing confirmation that a meeting had taken place between D and F prior to the 1999 preliminary inquiry;
• January 9, 2006 – Mr. A phoned Assistant Commissioner B (asking for a second opinion from Manitoba or Alberta on the perjury issue).

At Mr. A's urging, another meeting was held on January 19, 2006 with Assistant Commissioner B to discuss the concerns raised at the April 12, 2005, meeting. Chief Superintendent L was also in attendance. At this meeting, Assistant Commissioner B advised Mr. A that he would seek an outside legal opinion, but that the Saskatchewan Deputy Minister of Justice would have to agree, according to established protocol (since any ensuing charges would be prosecuted by Saskatchewan Justice).

A few more important dates following that meeting are:

• April 24, 2006 – Assistant Commissioner B sent an investigational package (three volumes of material including the G and J investigations) to Saskatchewan Justice for forwarding to Alberta Justice;
• Mr. A continued to send a series of letters to Assistant Commissioner B on a regular basis seeking answers to the questions raised at the April 12, 2005, meeting;
• September 28, 2006 – Alberta Justice wrote to Saskatchewan Justice (advising that no charges should be laid);
• October 12, 2006 – Saskatchewan Justice wrote to Assistant Commissioner B (advising of the results of the Alberta review);
• February 19, 2007 – Assistant Commissioner B wrote to Mr. A and provided the following two responses to some of his concerns:
  • he noted that Alberta Justice had reviewed the investigation package and agreed that no charges should be laid against D, F or H; and
  • Assistant Commissioner B concluded that Inspector C "was firmly of the belief that no private meeting had taken place between Ms. D and Crown Attorney F" when he sent his fax, based on the results of Sergeant G's investigation, even though "we now know, subsequent to the investigation done by Sgt. J that F did meet, and spoke to some degree with D prior to her giving evidence."

Analysis

This first allegation in Mr. A's public complaint is broadly aimed at Assistant Commissioner B's lack of timely response to the concerns Mr. A raised at their April 12, 2005, meeting. He claims that Assistant Commissioner B did nothing regarding his concerns during the nine-month period between the April 2005 meeting and the subsequent meeting on January 19, 2006. In this section, we will deal only with Assistant Commissioner B's response to Mr. A, or lack thereof, regarding the request for a legal opinion from outside the Province of Saskatchewan on the question of possible charges against D, Crown Attorney F or retired RCMP Sergeant H. The other matters raised by Mr. A at the April 12, 2005, meeting are the subject of independent allegations and will be addressed separately below.

The RCMP assigned a senior officer, Inspector N of British Columbia, to investigate Mr. A's public complaint. Her investigation report was reviewed by, and a Final Report to Mr. A was signed by, Deputy Commissioner M. It was important that the RCMP assign members to this file that were sufficiently senior given that the complaint was aimed at an assistant commissioner and an inspector, both high-ranking commissioned officer positions within the RCMP.

In the RCMP's Final Report to Mr. A following its public complaint investigation, the RCMP determined that Assistant Commissioner B had not ignored, nor had he failed to respond to, Mr. A's concerns during that nine-month interval. In the Final Report, Deputy Commissioner M said that Assistant Commissioner B "felt it incumbent upon himself to thoroughly research and prepare the proper response as opposed to providing the quick answer which may not have been wholly accurate."

It was not until January 2006 that Assistant Commissioner B finally agreed to forward the perjury issue for an outside legal opinion. Proper protocol required the matter to be approved by Saskatchewan Justice, despite Mr. A's objections, which further delayed the issue from being forwarded to Alberta until April of 2006. On September 28, 2006, Alberta Justice wrote back to Saskatchewan Justice offering the opinion that no charges should be laid. This opinion was relayed to Assistant Commissioner B by letter dated October 12, 2006. Despite letters from Mr. A to Assistant Commissioner B seeking updates on October 16, 2006, December 13, 2006 and February 12, 2007, it was not until February 19, 2007 that Assistant Commissioner B wrote to Mr. A advising him of the response from Alberta Justice.

The reality is that it should not have taken nine months for Assistant Commissioner B to decide that an outside opinion would be sought on the question of possible charges against D, F and H. It was not until April 2006 (a full year after the April 12, 2005, meeting) that Assistant Commissioner B finally sent the package of material to Saskatchewan Justice for forwarding to the Justice Department in Alberta.

In those nine months, Assistant Commissioner B gave Mr. A no reasonable explanation for this delay, despite Mr. A's repeated requests. The justification listed in the Final Report is that thorough research was required. Yet, there is no indication that Assistant Commissioner provided such an explanation to Mr. A during those nine months of waiting.

As is clear from Mr. A's multitude of phone calls and written correspondence, he was very anxious to get substantive and meaningful answers to the issues he raised with Assistant Commissioner B at their April 12, 2005, meeting. Assistant Commissioner B should have made a reasonable effort to provide those answers within a timely period. Alternatively, if he anticipated a lengthy delay in being able to reply to Mr. A, Assistant Commissioner B should have provided a suitable explanation and offered a tentative timeline.

Assistant Commissioner B had a duty not only to respond promptly to requests from the public, but to set an example for service to the public. This is especially true where he took it upon himself to look into Mr. A's concerns.

Finding: Assistant Commissioner B failed to respond to Mr. A's concerns within a reasonable amount of time.

Recommendation: Since Assistant Commissioner B is now retired, I make no recommendations directed at him, personally. However, I recommend that the RCMP ensure that its members are aware of the importance of timely and meaningful response to members of the public.

Second Allegation: Assistant Commissioner B failed to explain to Mr. A why Sergeant G's perjury investigation was so deficient and why those deficiencies were not recognized and remedied by supervising officers.

In the RCMP's Final Report to Mr. A, the substance of this allegation is not actually addressed. The Final Report acknowledges that Sergeant G's investigation was found to be deficient and indicates that Sergeant G was given operational guidance (generally, this amounts to constructive advice on how to avoid such errors in the future). The Final Report also suggests that the deficiencies were remedied by the second criminal investigation conducted by Sergeant J. The Report also notes that no charges emerged from Sergeant J's investigation, either.

However, that does not address Mr. A's allegation. The allegation is that Assistant Commissioner B failed to explain why the G investigation was so deficient and why supervising officers failed to intervene. In fact, Assistant Commissioner B never provided any explanation to Mr. A on this issue.

When interviewed by Inspector N in the course of the public complaint investigation, Assistant Commissioner B offered the following explanation. Sergeant G exercised investigative discretion in carrying out his investigation and there was no indication that anything "nefarious" led to the deficiencies in his investigation.

This is a reasonable, albeit basic, explanation for the inadequacy of Sergeant G's investigation. As part of his investigative discretion, it was up to Sergeant G to determine the scope of the investigation, based on a number of variables. Indeed, there is no evidence in the relevant material of any improper motive on the part of Sergeant G. The acknowledged deficiencies in his investigation can likely be attributed to simple lack of care.

Assistant Commissioner B also provided no explanation to Mr. A as for why these deficiencies were missed by supervisors. There is no indication on file that Assistant Commissioner B gave any thought to why these deficiencies were missed by his supervisors.

One of the checks in place to catch inadequate investigations is the public complaint system. The very purpose of the public complaint system is to identify RCMP misconduct that might otherwise go unnoticed. Indeed, Mr. A's complaint about Sergeant G was the catalyst for uncovering the deficiencies in Sergeant G's investigation. Unfortunately, that complaint was made two years after the investigation. Ideally, the RCMP should have other checks and balances in place to catch deficient investigations without the need for a public complaint. But inadequate investigations do occur.

I can see no reason why Assistant Commissioner B failed to provide an answer to Mr. A on this question, even a basic one.

Finding: Assistant Commissioner B failed to explain to Mr. A why Sergeant G's perjury investigation was so deficient and why those deficiencies were not noticed and rectified by supervising officers.

Recommendation: I will not offer a recommendation to Assistant Commissioner B, as he is now retired. However, I recommend that the RCMP ensure, through policy or guidelines, that all allegations in public complaints are investigated and adequately addressed in the Final Report to the complainant.

Third Allegation: Assistant Commissioner B failed to investigate Mr. A's allegation that Saskatchewan Attorneys General I and K committed criminal breach of trust.

Another issue brought up by Mr. A at the April 12, 2005, meeting was the alleged criminal conduct by Saskatchewan Attorneys General I and K. Mr. A is of the opinion that they committed criminal breach of trust in refusing to order a second investigation into the first instance of alleged perjury by D, refusing to order an investigation into the second instance of alleged perjury and refusing to investigate possible criminal conduct by F and retired Sergeant H.

To reiterate the facts, Mr. A wrote to Saskatchewan Attorney General I on November 4, 2002 requesting an outside investigation into the two alleged instances of perjury by D, including an investigation into the conduct of Crown Attorney F and RCMP Sergeant H. Attorney General I responded by letter to Mr. A on December 17, 2002 saying that he had reviewed the matter in light of the accusation of prosecutorial misconduct but had determined that there was no justification for a re-investigation by an outside agency. On January 21, 2003, Mr. A wrote again to the Attorney General. Then Attorney General K responded on March 4, 2003 indicating that he was in agreement with his predecessor that another investigation was unnecessary and that the issue of alleged misconduct could be considered in Mr. A's civil lawsuit for malicious prosecution.

Despite Mr. A's request that he do so, Assistant Commissioner B did not initiate an investigation into Attorneys General I and K. Instead, he advised Mr. A that there was insufficient evidence to do so. Mr. A cites the Supreme Court decision of R. v. Boulanger ([2006] 2 S.C.R. 49) as support for his proposition that the Attorneys General were guilty of criminal breach of trust. According to Belanger, a breach of trust is committed where the alleged conduct amounts to a serious and marked departure from the standards expected of individuals in the accused's position of public trust. Criminal breach of trust also requires that the accused public official have acted with intent to use their public office for a purpose other than public good, for example, a dishonest, partial, corrupt or oppressive purpose.

A police officer uses discretion when deciding whether to institute a criminal investigation. There has to be some indication that a crime has been committed to warrant a criminal investigation. In Assistant Commissioner B's opinion, there was no such indication here.

The Crown and the Attorney General have distinct roles to play separate and apart from the role of the police, although the two roles are complementary. The police investigate, while the Crown prosecutes. When Mr. A wrote to the Attorneys General, they looked into the alleged misconduct on the part of the Crown Attorney F. Their refusal to go further and order an investigation and/or re-investigation into possible criminal conduct already investigated by the RCMP was not conduct that should have attracted a criminal investigation.

Finding: Assistant Commissioner B acted appropriately in choosing not to investigate accusations of criminal breach of trust against two Saskatchewan Attorneys General.

Fourth Allegation: Assistant Commissioner B failed to provide substantive information to the Law Society of Saskatchewan in support of Mr. A's complaint against Crown Counsel F.

This allegation was completely omitted from the RCMP's March 11, 2009, Final Report to the complainant. The allegation was listed on the RCMP's complaint form (form 4110), yet it is not discussed at all in the Final Report. It is imperative that all allegations in public complaints be investigated and reported back to the complainant.

Fortunately, there is sufficient information in the relevant material provided to me by the RCMP for me to address this allegation. Mr. A wrote to Assistant Commissioner B on June 9, 2005 requesting that he provide the Law Society of Saskatchewan with information establishing that a meeting had taken place between D and F prior to the 1999 preliminary inquiry. This was in support of Mr. A's complaint to the Law Society about Crown Attorney F for allegedly allowing perjured testimony to stand. Despite repeated requests by Mr. A, it was not until January 4, 2006 that Assistant Commissioner B forwarded a letter to the Law Society of Saskatchewan.

Part of the delay can be attributed to the fact that Assistant Commissioner B had to contact the Law Society to confirm the complaint and determine exactly the issue under consideration. Assistant Commissioner B's letter to the Law Society was nine pages and extensively outlined the results of both Sergeant G's and Sergeant J's investigations on the question of whether there had been a meeting between D and F prior to the February 18, 1999, preliminary inquiry. The letter was well-written and exhaustive in its inclusion of the evidence gathered with respect to this issue. The letter demonstrated that it was quite likely that D and F had met both on February 16, 1999 and February 18, 1999.

Because the Law Society of Saskatchewan decided in the end not to forward the matter to an Investigation Committee, Mr. A questions the sufficiency of Assistant Commissioner B's January 4, 2006, letter. I am satisfied that this letter more than amply supplied the information sought by the Law Society of Saskatchewan.

Nonetheless, it should not have taken seven months before this letter was forwarded to the Law Society of Saskatchewan. Furthermore, at no time did Assistant Commissioner B provide Mr. A with a reasonable excuse for this inordinate delay.

Finding: Assistant Commissioner B delayed unnecessarily providing information to the Law Society of Saskatchewan, but the information he did ultimately provide was substantive and comprehensive.

Recommendation: I reiterate the recommendation that the RCMP ensure, through policy or guidelines, that all allegations in public complaints are investigated and adequately addressed in the Final Report to the complainant.

Fifth Allegation: Inspector (now Chief Superintendent) C's facsimile transmission to Mr. A, dated September 26, 2001, contained false and misleading information regarding the findings of Sergeant G's investigation.

In the fall of 2001, Mr. A contacted the RCMP to try to obtain confirmation of the D/F meeting for his upcoming trial. He felt that D had perjured herself at the 1999 preliminary inquiry and wanted proof of this for his trial. Chief Superintendent C reviewed Sergeant G's perjury investigation file and provided Mr. A with a facsimile transmission on September 26, 2001. In that fax, Chief Superintendent C stated that he had reviewed the investigation "report and other appropriate documents relating to the D file" and advised Mr. A that the "file concludes that no private meeting took place between Ms. D and Crown Attorney Mr. F before she submitted her testimony at the preliminary inquiry in Pelican Narrows."

The RCMP's Final Report to Mr. A concludes that the "material reviewed by Inspector C was up to 26 September 2001 and there was no material, up to that point, which was conclusive regarding any private meeting. There can be inferences made from the content of the report by Sergeant G that the matter of the meeting should have been explored further. These inferences do not constitute fact that a private meeting took place."

Clearly, Chief Superintendent C's facsimile transmission was inaccurate. He stated that the file concluded that no meeting took place; whereas, as correctly noted in the Final Report, there was no material that was conclusive regarding a meeting. A lack of conclusive proof of a meeting is not the same as concluding that no meeting took place. As noted in the Final Report, the evidence on file suggested that further investigation should have taken place on the question of a possible meeting.

Therefore, Chief Superintendent C's facsimile transmission was, in fact, misleading. The RCMP's Final Report should have come to this obvious conclusion. However, I note that there is no indication of an ulterior motive on the part of Chief Superintendent C. He should have realized the value to Mr. A of being exact in his language regarding his assessment of the file evidence. Chief Superintendent C should have indicated that the evidence was equivocal and no definite conclusion could be drawn either way based on the information on file to that point.

In fact, had the investigation file definitively concluded that no meeting had taken place between D and F, then there would have been no evidence of perjury whatsoever. However, the fact that Sergeant G's investigative results were forwarded to the Crown for a determination on possible perjury charges demonstrates that Sergeant G's investigation at least pointed to the possibility that a D/F meeting had taken place. Therefore, it was simply not logical for Chief Superintendent C to have stated that the investigation file "concludes that no private meeting took place."

Finding: Chief Superintendent C's facsimile transmission of September 26, 2001 was misleading.

Recommendation: That Chief Superintendent C be reminded of the need to provide accurate information when he undertakes to respond to a member of the public.

Having considered the complaint, I hereby submit my Interim Report in accordance with paragraph 45.42(3)(a) of the RCMP Act.

Chair,
______________________________
Paul E. Kennedy

1 Mr. A's letter of complaint was dated April 9, 2007. The Commission received this letter on April 20, 2007.

2 Mr. A's explanation for pleading guilty was his view that he would have been unable to get a fair trial with Crown Attorney F as prosecutor.

3 By this time, it had come to light that E may have perjured herself.