|
Jaime
Wheeler
| Denver
Crawford
| Wilf
Hathway | RCMP arrogance |
Justin Harris:
Cop without a single redeeming quality
See also the case of Calgary
RCMP undercover operative, Robert
Blundell who sexually assaulted his own colleagues!
Many questions, few answers
in RCMP case
GARY MASON, Blobe and Mail,
October 7, 2006
VANCOUVER -- Wally Oppal, the
always loquacious Attorney-General of British Columbia, suddenly
has a dry throat. He doesn't want to talk about the abrupt and
shocking ending to a disciplinary hearing the RCMP initiated
against one of its own officers.
The hearing was terminated
when a three-member tribunal ruled the force contravened its
own bylaws by not initiating disciplinary proceedings against
Constable Justin Harris soon enough.
Constable Harris is alleged
to have paid underage prostitutes to have sex with him, a charge
the officer has denied.
I phoned Mr. Oppal's office
to ask whether the minister felt an independent inquiry should
be ordered into the matter. After all, a police officer's reputation
is at stake.
Everyone in the world now knows
a prostitute has alleged Constable Harris hit her when she refused
to perform oral sex because he wouldn't wear a condom. And that
another prostitute described him as a "bad date," a
term ladies of the evening ascribe to clients who are often drunk
and aggressive.
In the past, Mr. Oppal has
expressed his frustration with the province's lack of jurisdiction
over the RCMP given that it pays the salaries of the officers
working here. When it comes to the force, the Attorney-General
has said, it's a federal responsibility.
That is not good enough here.
The allegations against Constable Harris are extremely serious.
And they are incidents alleged to have occurred under Mr. Oppal's
watch as Attorney-General.
If Mr. Oppal can't do anything
himself, then he should publicly call for something to be done.
He should urge Stockwell Day, the federal minister responsible
for our national police force, to order an inquiry.
Because heaven knows there
are many questions to be answered.
A request to speak to Mr. Oppal
about these matters was declined. Questions were referred to
a spokesman in the Criminal Justice Branch.
A request to speak with Bev
Busson, Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP in B.C., was also denied.
You see, while on paper the
RCMP is answerable to Canadians through Parliament, in practice
it is accountable to no one.
Our politicians are mostly
afraid to question the actions of the force, or its leadership.
But here are some of the questions
they should be asking in the case of Constable Harris.
It is now known that in December
of 2002, Assistant Commissioner Gary Bass, received a report
that up to nine RCMP officers in Prince George, including Constable
Harris, were being investigated for possible links to underage
prostitutes. And yet it wouldn't be until June, 2004, that he
thought to inform his superior, Bev Busson, of what was going
on.
Huh? Nine officers are being
investigated for possible links to underage prostitutes and the
assistant commissioner doesn't think it's important enough to
inform his boss?
He also neglected to inform
one of the officers within the proper time frame that he was
facing a possible disciplinary hearing stemming from an investigation
into his conduct. It was because of this oversight the disciplinary
hearing was quashed.
Under the RCMP Act, a commanding
officer must launch a disciplinary hearing within one year of
becoming aware of an officer's misconduct. An initial disciplinary
hearing against Constable Harris wasn't initiated until September
of 2004, almost two years after Mr. Bass was first informed of
the allegations against Constable Harris.
After that initial hearing,
the constable was suspended with pay.
But in February of this year,
the Federal Court of Appeal clarified when the one-year time
limit on disciplinary hearings begins. A new disciplinary hearing
against Constable Harris then commenced on Oct. 2, at which time
his lawyer made clear he would argue the action against his client
should be dropped because the Mounties waited too long to commence
the hearing initially.
If that was the case, why did
the tribunal hear any evidence before making its ruling that
ended the hearing? Why didn't it deal with the matter at the
outset, thereby preventing provocative and damaging testimony
against the officer from being heard and published?
If Constable Harris is innocent
of the accusations levelled against him, what recourse does the
officer now have to clear his name?
Why is there a one-year limit
on the commencement of these hearings anyway? Especially given
the notoriously slow pace at which the RCMP conducts investigations
involving its own officers. Why is the RCMP allowed to investigate
itself in the first place?
What does Giuliano Zaccardelli,
the embattled commissioner of the RCMP, think of all this? Is
he satisfied with the way this case was handled? Does he still
have complete confidence in Mr. Bass? Does he intend to allow
despicable allegations to forever hang over the head of one of
his officers? If the answer is yes, does he think that's fair?
Does he think the one-year
statute of limitations on disciplinary hearings is a good idea?
Why did the RCMP go ahead with
the disciplinary hearing against Constable Harris when the B.C.
Attorney-General's Department had earlier decided there was not
enough evidence against the officer to lay criminal charges?
Did the Criminal Justice Branch of the Ministry get it wrong?
So many questions. So few people
willing to answer them.
gmason@globeandmail.com
Day wants changes to
RCMP Act
CanWest News Service,
October 07, 2006
VANCOUVER -- The Conservative
government may change the RCMP Act after a misconduct investigation
was tossed out due to a technicality, Public Safety Minister
Stockwell Day said Friday.
Disciplinary charges against
a Prince George, B.C., RCMP officer who was alleged to have paid
underage prostitutes for sex were dismissed this week because
the RCMP took too long to bring a case against him.
Day told reporters in Vancouver
the RCMP has a "long and proud" history, but "no
organization is perfect."
He said the RCMP Act and other
legislation governing the force "over time needs to be looked
at, needs to be improved, and that is what we are doing."
Const. Justin Harris -- who
has been on paid suspension -- will not be allowed to return
to work until the force decides whether to appeal Wednesday's
decision by an RCMP disciplinary panel.
Harris, who maintains his innocence
and has not been criminally charged, was accused of behaving
in a "disgraceful manner" by having sex with prostitutes
under the age of 18 between 1993 and 2001.
Harris was first notified of
the disciplinary charges against him in September 2004.
Under the RCMP Act, a commanding
officer must launch a disciplinary hearing within one year of
becoming aware of an officer's misconduct.
Harris' lawyer Reginald Harris
argued the Mounties failed to meet that standard in his client's
case because senior members of the force -- including assistant
commissioner Gary Bass -- were aware of the allegations as early
as July 2002.
Before Harris' disciplinary
hearing was shut down, it heard accusations that Harris had sex
with two underage prostitutes in Prince George. One woman claimed
he hit her when she refused to remove the condom he was wearing.
Another claimed he was "drunk and aggressive."
Vancouver Sun
© CanWest News Service 2006
Another RCMP stumble
Victoria Times Colonist,
October 06, 2006
When the Mounties don't get
their man it's disappointing.
When the man they do get is
one of their own and they let him go, it's downright suspicious.
Const. Justin Harris faced
an RCMP tribunal this week that was to determine whether he had
sexual encounters with underage girls selling themselves on the
streets of Prince George.
But the case was thrown out
on the grounds that fellow members of the force -- including
senior officers in the B.C. headquarters -- had taken too long
to investigate the allegations and lay disciplinary charges.
The tribunal found that even though senior RCMP officers knew
of the allegations in 2002, no disciplinary action began until
2004.
Only after Provincial Court
Judge David Ramsay pleaded guilty to having sexual relations
with aboriginal teenage girls did the RCMP launch disciplinary
investigations into allegations that officers and others were
using and abusing young sex trade workers.
Harris was the only one called
upon to face a hearing. He maintains his innocence.
The RCMP Act requires that
a commanding officer begin a disciplinary hearing within a year
of becoming aware of an accusation of misconduct.
But senior officers, right
up to the level of assistant commissioner, had known about these
allegations for more than two years before even informing Harris
about them.
Harris is not facing criminal
charges, even though he was described as "drunk and aggressive"
by one woman who says he had sex with her when she was 16 and
another woman told investigators he hit her during a sexual encounter.
We don't know if investigators
discounted these accounts or why the process was stalled.
We do know that other disciplinary
hearings have been abandoned because it has taken too long for
the RCMP to investigate one of their own. We've heard an RCMP
spokesman explain, in relation to the shooting death of Ian Bush
by a rookie RCMP constable in Houston in 2005, that an investigation
"takes long because it takes long." And we know that
in that case, where no criminal charges were deemed necessary,
the force's civilian oversight commission has opened an investigation
-- by asking the Mounties to investigate one more time, to see
if required procedures were followed.
It's time the procedures, and
those who are following them, were examined in a public inquiry.
© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2006
Harris Wins, but Society
Loses: One Man's Opinion
By 250 News, October 05,
2006
If Constable Justin Harris
wanted to clear his name of any involvement with prostitutes
in Prince George, he chose an unusual way of doing it.
Yesterday the tribunal, in
which Harris was appearing before, decided too much time had
elapsed and so the disciplinary tribunal was dismissed, Harris
had won.
Now that raises the question;
if you wanted to have your name cleared why in the world wouldn't
you encourage the hearing to go ahead so you could tell your
side of the story?
If he felt as confident as
his father (an ex- police officer) did, he also would have wanted
the truth to emerge.
But there remain other questions.
Judge Ramsay, (who was sent
to jail for using underage prostitutes) appeared in court in
P.G.
Why wasn't Harris's tribunal
set for the same city? This is where the allegations first surfaced,
and is home to the women who lodged the complaints.
Why did it take a fraction
of the time to get Ramsay to trial but not Harris? With the same
people prepared to testify against Ramsay, why were there no
criminal charges? The testimony of the same group of women was
sufficient to have Judge Ramsay plead guilty and yet somehow
wasn't sufficient in Harris's case.
Did the light not go on that
to delay would allow Harris to go free?
Had the average citizen been
accused of this same conduct, would they have escaped a criminal
charge? Just how long a delay would they have been granted?
The Ian Bush death is an example
of the system dragging its heels.
There was only one witness
to interview; (the police officer who did the shooting) why has
that matter taken nearly a year to be heard?
Society wants a better explanation
of why there were no criminal charges and is entitled to an answer.
When the general public loses
its trust in the police force, it loses its trust in the whole
system.
People no longer report crime
because they see no reason to do so. Two many events have taken
place in the past year not to erode the trust of society in the
police force in Canada. Instead of circling the wagons, those
police forces should now be looking at how they can regain the
trust of the people they are sent to protect.
Harris can now return to his
old job with the comfort of knowing that by winning his case
by a TKO, he has made the public even more suspicious about the
whole affair.
That isn't exactly what we
as a society should expect from someone we have hired to uphold
our laws.
I'm Meisner, and that is one
man's opinion.
Harris not the first
case in which RCMP waited too long
Chad Skelton, Vancouver
Sun, October 05, 2006
Prince George Const. Justin
Harris isn't the first RCMP officer to have disciplinary charges
dropped against him because the Mounties waited too long to launch
their case.
In 2001, Burnaby RCMP Const.
Michael Pratt -- who was criminally convicted of assaulting Vancouver
dentist Kary Taylor during a routine traffic stop -- had his
disciplinary charges thrown out because the time limit had expired.
The time limit on disciplinary
charges is in Section 43(8) of the RCMP Act. It says a commanding
officer must launch a disciplinary hearing within "one year
from the time the contravention and the identity of that member
became known to the appropriate officer."
Disciplinary hearings and the
courts have wrestled over what it means for a commanding officer
to have "knowledge" of misconduct.
In Harris's case, the RCMP
argued that while Assistant Commissioner Gary Bass knew of the
allegations in 2002, he didn't have sufficient evidence to launch
disciplinary action.
But the three-member panel
of senior Mounties hearing Harris's case disagreed Wednesday
and found Bass did have enough information in January 2003 to
start the clock on the one-year time limit.
In reaching its decision, the
panel relied heavily on a February 2006 ruling by the Federal
Court of Appeal involving an RCMP officer in Quebec by the name
of Gerard Theriault.
Theriault was ordered fired
in 2000 on charges of managing a bar frequented by biker gangs
and of trying to facilitate a drug deal.
But the appeal court reversed
that. It said Mounties don't need rock-solid proof -- or even
enough evidence to warrant a suspension -- before they need to
notify an officer of disciplinary proceedings.
The legal standard, it wrote,
is that the commanding officer must only have "sufficient
credible and persuasive information" that the offence occurred
and that the suspect officer was the perpetrator.
The RCMP's duty to notify an
officer of disciplinary charges is complicated in cases -- like
that of Harris -- in which the allegations are so serious that
a criminal investigation has also been launched.
In such cases, the criminal
investigation takes precedence. Criminal investigators may not
want internal affairs to tip off suspect officers that they are
being targeted.
As the Harris case illustrates,
that delay in notifying the officer can pose a problem if, in
the end, the evidence isn't strong enough for criminal charges
-- but is sufficient for disciplinary charges to go ahead.
cskelton@png.canwest.com
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
Canada has a limitation period
only for less serious criminal offences. B.C. has limits in many
civil cases. In indictable crimes such as sexual assault or murder,
the offender can be charged at any time.
EXAMPLES OF LIMITATIONS:
Six months: Committing an "indecent
act."
Two years: Your spouse locks
you in the bathroom; someone's negligence causes a death in your
family; You have a medical malpractice case; Someone publishes
nasty, untrue information about you.
Six years: Suing your landlord.
10 years: Contesting a will;
suing a trustee for selling your residential property for less
than its worth.
Jenny Lee, Vancouver Sun
© The Vancouver Sun 2006
-
- Timing of RCMP sex allegations
called unfair
Prince George officer deserved more expedient probe, lawyer tells
discipline panel
PETTI FONG, The Globe and
Mail
VANCOUVER -- The lawyer for
an RCMP officer accused of having sex with underage prostitutes
said the department was wrong to not start an investigation earlier
and discipline charges should therefore be dismissed.
Reginald Harris said that,
in the interest of fairness, Constable Justin Harris should have
been investigated sooner and had the opportunity to answer the
charges against him earlier.
Constable Harris was supposed
to be answering to an RCMP tribunal this week over three allegations
that his conduct was disgraceful and "could bring discredit
on the force."
Constable Harris is the only
officer of nine in Prince George allegedly named in investigative
reports to be brought up before adjudicators for misconduct after
allegations against RCMP officers and other high-profile community
members first surfaced in 1999. A subsequent police investigation
led to the arrest of a Provincial Court judge.
Former judge David Ramsay was
sentenced to seven years in jail after pleading guilty in June
of 2004 to having sex with underage sex-trade workers who had
appeared before his courtroom. No RCMP officer has yet been charged.
Constable Harris's lawyer has
argued that the adjudication panel should be quashed because
senior RCMP officers failed to bring the allegations before the
hearing in a timely fashion.
The RCMP counters that the
allegations against the officer, which included second- or third-hand
information and reluctant sources, could not be substantiated
before a thorough investigation.
In his testimony, Assistant
Commissioner Gary Bass said the allegations made by the sex-trade
workers were broad and noted the women were not prepared to follow
up with statements.
Mr. Harris said Mr. Bass knew
by 2002 that Constable Harris had been accused of being involved
in sex with underage prostitutes.
The RCMP Act says a hearing
must take place within a year of a senior officer becoming aware
of allegations against a member.
Those allegations, the lawyer
said, were clear enough that Mr. Bass asked for a more thorough
investigation and expended RCMP resources to look into the matter,
proving the senior officer knew what was happening.
"It's not necessary to
have all the information necessary to start a prosecution,"
Mr. Harris said. "Sketchy information is enough" to
have compelled the RCMP to put Constable Harris on notice that
he was under investigation.
The panel was told that Constable
Harris had oral sex with a prostitute after paying her $60. On
another occasion, the panel was told, the officer became angry
and struck the young woman after he paid for oral sex and she
refused his request to remove the condom he was wearing. The
allegations span a period when the prostitute was between 13
and 15 years old.
A second sex-trade worker told
investigators she had sex with the officer on two occasions and
in both instances, he was drunk and angry.
"She considered him a
bad date," said Sergeant Armin Teitz, who testified yesterday.
"She was 16 years old at the time. He knew her, and he knew
how old she was."
Sgt. Teitz was part of a task
force that was in charge of looking into the criminal investigation
against RCMP officers in Prince George. Finding witnesses who
were prepared to talk to authorities and who were not under the
influence of drugs was difficult, he said.
"They were very transient
and difficult to locate and many of them had distrust of police,"
Sgt. Teitz said. "We had to make contact with them several
times."
Brian Radford, the lawyer for
the RCMP, said that on the basis of reasonable evidence, the
force did not have enough concrete information to proceed with
disciplinary charges against Constable Harris until after the
investigation was concluded in 2005.
"The investigation had
to be carried out," Mr. Radford said. "Otherwise, we
are in a situation of advising the designated officer based on
rumours."
The panel will return with
its decision today.
|
Truth can never be
told so as to be understood, and not be believ'd. William Blake, The Proverbs of Hell