Paul Kennedy, chair of the Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP, has concluded an investigation of the police complaint process and recommended that the RCMP cease its practice of self-investigation when RCMP officers cause serious injury or death. Kennedy, however, did not recommend completely independent investigations. In cases of death, Kennedy recommends that the investigation be done by a provincial criminal investigation unit or an external police service. In other cases, Kennedy recommended enhanced civilian involvement by including in he investigation team a civilian observer from the CPC. The CPC implemented the observer program in British Columbia in 2008 after it began as a pilot project in 2007.

It is unfortunate that Kennedy’s solution to the problem of the police investigating the police is to solve it with different police investigating the police. Ontario and Manitoba, along with numerous jurisdictions outside of Canada, have opted to create an independent civilian agency, or Special Investigation Unit, to investigate instances of serious injury and death caused by the police. In instances of serious injury, rather than have a special police unit conduct investigations overseen by an observer program, it would be simply better to refer such investigations to the same special investigation unit that investigates police-involved deaths. Kennedy recommends multiple solutions where one would suffice.

Kennedy’s recommendations go against his very argument. He states that “the very nature of an investigation by one police officer into another is fundamentally different from the police investigating a member of the public for the exact same crime. Police are held to higher account by the very nature of the work they do.” Rather than advocating for an independent special investigation unit, he speaks of investigations by external police forces and observers. However, an investigation by an external police force is still self-investigation, police investigating police. An observer program relies entirely on the information provided by the RCMP, and by its own admission, “it is not the goal of the CPC Independent Observer to assess the adequacy of the RCMP’s investigation“.

The idea of a special investigation unit is often attacked by those who claim that only the police have the skills and wherewithal to conduct an investigation. The idea that there is some divine right of investigation is absurd: many professions besides policing require knowledge of the legal system and investigative skills. In addition, Kennedy’s report is hardly reassuring to those who suggest Police would do a better job of these investigations than civilians.

Though not ideal, what Kennedy proposes is still better than what currently exists. In his report, Kennedy analyses 28 cases of self-investigation and paints a clear picture of the numerous problems that exist within the model of self-investigation.

For instance, he notes that in 68% of the cases under review, investigations were handled in an “inappropriate” manner. He also finds that in 25% of cases, investigators said they knew the officer they were investigating personally. And almost one-third of investigations were carried out by officers of an equal or lesser rank than the officer they were investigating, which created significant potential for intimidation.

In response to the recommendations in the report, RCMP Commissioner William Elliott has stated that “we [the RCMP] agree in principle with your assertion that although all Canadians, including RCMP members, are entitled under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to be treated equally under the law, criminal investigations of RCMP members may necessitate different treatment from a procedural point of view.” Commissioner Elliott has promised that forthcoming policy changes will address many of the concerns raised by Kennedy’s report.

Check out the final public report by the CPC.

Tags: RCMP, Transparency

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.