Director's Report Details

The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving police officers where there has been death, serious injury or allegations of sexual assault. The Unit’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.

Under the Police Services Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether an officer has committed a criminal offence in connection with the incident under investigation. If, after an investigation, there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence was committed, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the officer. Alternatively, in all cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director does not lay criminal charges but files a report with the Attorney General communicating the results of an investigation.

Freedom of Information and Protection of Personal Privacy Act (“FIPPA”)

Pursuant to section 14 of FIPPA (i.e., law enforcement), certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• Confidential investigative techniques and procedures used by law enforcement agencies; and
• Information whose release could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter or an investigation undertaken with a view to a law enforcement proceeding.

Pursuant to section 21 of FIPPA (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this document. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• subject officer name(s)
• witness officer name(s)
• civilian witness name(s)
• location information
• witness statements and evidence gathered in the course of the investigation provided to the SIU in confidence and
• other identifiers which are likely to reveal personal information about individuals involved in the investigation

Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 (“PHIPA”)

Pursuant to PHIPA, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.

Other proceedings, processes, and investigations

Information may have also been excluded from this report because its release could undermine the integrity of other proceedings involving the same incident, such as criminal proceedings, coroner’s inquests, other public proceedings and/or other law enforcement investigations.

The Unit’s investigative jurisdiction is limited to those incidents where there is a serious injury (including sexual assault allegations) or death in cases involving the police.

“Serious injuries” shall include those that are likely to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim and are more than merely transient or trifling in nature and will include serious injury resulting from sexual assault. “Serious Injury” shall initially be presumed when the victim is admitted to hospital, suffers a fracture to a limb, rib or vertebrae or to the skull, suffers burns to a major portion of the body or loses any portion of the body or suffers loss of vision or hearing, or alleges sexual assault. Where a prolonged delay is likely before the seriousness of the injury can be assessed, the Unit should be notified so that it can monitor the situation and decide on the extent of its involvement.

This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the serious injury reportedly sustained by a 34-year-old man during his arrest on July 4^th, 2017.

Notification of the SIU

At approximately 7:45 a.m., on Tuesday, July 4^th, 2017, the Chatham-Kent Police Service (CKPS) notified the SIU of the Complainant’s custody injury.

The CKPS reported that on July 4^th, 2017, at 4:31 a.m., police officers arrested the Complainant for a domestic assault on his partner, Civilian Witness (CW) #2. The Complainant resisted and was taken to the ground. While being transported to the police station, he began banging his face on the screen in the police cruiser. He was then taken to the hospital and treated for a broken nose.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Complainant:

34-year-old male, interviewed, medical records obtained and reviewed

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

Witness Officers

WO #1 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

Subject Officers

SO #1 Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject officer’s legal right.

SO #2 Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject officer’s legal right.

SO #3 Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject officer’s legal right.

On July 4^th, 2017, a 911 call was made to the CKPS reporting that the Complainant was not in his right mind, due to the ingestion of narcotics, and that he had assaulted another occupant in his residence in the Municipality of Chatham-Kent. Subject Officer (SO) #1 and SO #2 were originally dispatched and attended at the residence. When the first two officers called for assistance, SO #3 also attended.

The police officers attempted to arrest the Complainant for domestic assault, but he resisted, resulting in their taking him to the ground, where he struck his face on the patio stones, resulting in bleeding from his facial area. The Complainant was then arrested and transported initially to the police station, but before he had even exited the police cruiser, it was decided to take him directly to the hospital.

Nature of Injuries / Treatment

On July 4^th, 2017, at 5:02 a.m., the Complainant was transported to the hospital by the CKPS. He was diagnosed with a comminuted fracture (a break/splinter of the bone into more than two fragments) of the nasal bone and nasal septum.

The Complainant did not receive any specific treatment and was discharged at 11:10 a.m.

The Scene

The residence where the Complainant was arrested is a single family residential dwelling. There was a small sidewalk leading from the driveway on the west side of the building that travelled east towards the entrance. There were several areas of suspected blood staining on the sidewalk. There was a large plastic container next to the sidewalk that had a large area of pooling of what appeared to be the same sort of staining.

The entrance leads into a small living room area. There was a coffee table in the centre of the room that had damage to the edge. An open stairway to the second floor loft area leads to a bedroom and there was a damaged door that had been removed from its hinges at the top of the stairs.

Forensic Evidence

No submissions were made to the Centre of Forensic Sciences.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence

Summary of sally port video at CKPS station:

SO #2 drove into the sally port and WO #1 met him at the booking area door. SO #2 exited the police vehicle and he and WO #1 had a brief conversation. The Complainant remained in the police vehicle and the SO #2 got back into the police vehicle and left the sally port.

Communications Recordings

Summary of the 911 Call:

On July 4^th, 2017, at 4:38 a.m., a 911 call was received from CW #1 in which she reported that the Complainant was going psychotic because CW #2, who had lived with him for three years, had cheated on him.

The caller reported that at about 2:30 a.m., the Complainant had ripped a door off its hinges and threw it down the stairs, striking CW #2’s nose. The caller indicated that she believed that the Complainant was mentally ill and that he had to go to the hospital.

CW #2 then came to the telephone and indicated that the Complainant was taking medication for his mental health condition and that he smoked marijuana and he took his methadone medication. CW #2 indicated that she felt the Complainant was losing his mind and disrupting the neighbourhood and that she was scared for her life, although the Complainant had never hit her in the past.

The dispatcher said there were two police officers at the door and once CW #1 confirmed their presence, the telephone call ended.

Summary of the CKPS communications recording:

The police transmissions recording revealed the following:

SO #1 and SO #2 were dispatched to a domestic call. Both police officers were told that the Complainant had ripped a door off the wall and threw it at CW #2. The Complainant was in the bedroom and he was having mental health issues. The Complainant was listed as a “caution” for violence, because he had previously used prohibited firearms.

SO #2 reported that they were inside the residence and that the Complainant was pretty aggressive. SO #2 asked for a third unit to assist and SO #3 was dispatched and arrived at the address. SO #2 said that the Complainant was being arrested for assault with a weapon.

SO #2 reported that the Complainant would be taken to the police station and arrangements were to be made for further police officers to come to the booking area.

SO #2 and the Complainant then arrived at the police station. Shortly thereafter, the Complainant was transported to the hospital and the emergency department was to be contacted and warned about the Complainant’s arrival.

Materials obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from the CKPS

• Arrest Report for the Complainant
• Event Chronology
• Event Details
• Notes from WO #s 1-3
• 911 Call and Police Transmission Communication Recordings
• Sally port video from CKPS station
• Procedure: Use of Force OPC Guidelines (April 2013)
• Procedure: Ontario Use of Force Model (Nov 2011)
• Procedure: Use of Force (Nov 2011), and
• Training Records for the three SOs

The SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from other sources:

• Medical records of the Complainant

Section 25(1), Criminal Code - Protection of persons acting under authority

25 (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law

1. as a private person
2. as a peace officer or public officer
3. in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or
4. by virtue of his office

is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.

Section 267, Criminal Code - Assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm

267 Every one who, in committing an assault,

1. carries, uses or threatens to use a weapon or an imitation thereof, or
2. causes bodily harm to the complainant

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.

On July 4^th, 2017, a 911 call was received by the Chatham-Kent Police Service (CKPS) at approximately 4:09 a.m., from Civilian Witness (CW) #1 indicating that the Complainant was having a psychotic episode and she required police assistance. In the recorded 911 call, CW #1 is heard to tell the dispatcher that at about 2:30 a.m. that same morning, the Complainant had ripped a door off its hinges and thrown it down the stairs at CW #2, and the door had struck CW #2 in the nose. CW #2 is then recorded in the 911 call as coming on the line and indicating that she felt that the Complainant was losing his mind and she was scared for her life, although she indicated that the Complainant never hit her. As a result, Subject Officer (SO) #1, SO #2, and SO #3 were dispatched to the residence in the Municipality of Chatham-Kent. The Complainant was subsequently arrested for an assault on his partner, CW #2 (contrary of s.266 of the Criminal Code). Following his interaction with the police, he was transported to the hospital where he was diagnosed as having sustained a comminuted fracture to his nasal bone and nasal septum.

It is alleged by the Complainant that on July 4^th, 2017, he got into an argument with CW #2 and he became extremely upset. The Complainant alleged that after he broke his dresser, six to eight police officers showed up, although he could not say why they were there but that it was quite possibly a domestic call. He advised that four police officers were in his bedroom and that they disrespected him and he went outside with them. The officers told him that he was under arrest for domestic assault and he argued with them, as he disagreed. A police officer put a handcuff on the Complainant’s right hand, but he indicated that it hurt so he jerked back. He described himself as upset, but not resisting, at which point it is alleged that a police officer punched him in the nose causing it to bleed. The Complainant then walked to a police cruiser calling the officers derogatory names, and he got into the rear passenger seat and told the officers that he would break the passenger window since he was so upset that his nose had been broken. The Complainant indicated, however, that he never actually hit his face against the partition in the cruiser. The Complainant was then initially taken to the police station and not to the hospital.

During the course of this investigation, four civilian witnesses, including the Complainant, and all three SOs provided interviews to SIU investigators. Additionally, SIU investigators had access to the recordings of the 911 call and the police radio transmissions as well as the Complainant’s medical records and the download data from the Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) in the possession of SO #3 on the date of this incident.

CW #1 stated that the Complainant came out of his room, yelled at CW #1, and then went back in his room where he apparently pushed the bedroom door off its hinges and threw it over the railing, where it fell and first hit the fish tank and then bounced and struck a nearby coffee table, causing a dent, before striking CW #2 in the nose. The Complainant then came downstairs, grabbed the door and returned to his bedroom and CW #1 called 911.

CW #1 indicated that CW #3 went outside and brought two police officers inside the residence. She described the officers as calling out to the Complainant, following which he willingly and calmly came downstairs to speak with them. The officers then coaxed the Complainant outside and stood on a stone patio just outside the door while she stayed inside. CW #1 advised that from inside the house she could see the Complainant extend his arms and repeatedly ask why he was being arrested but that she did not hear any response from the officers. She then saw one of the officers suddenly draw a CEW from his left side and she heard the sound of the CEW being discharged for about five seconds, followed by the Complainant screaming and then falling backwards and out of sight. CW #1 then heard the CEW being discharged twice more, with each deployment lasting ten seconds, while the Complainant continued to scream in pain.

CW #2, in her statement, indicated that she was sitting in the living room on the couch when suddenly the bedroom door came over the banister and just missed her. The Complainant was calling CW #2 names. The Complainant then came down the stairs, picked up the door and took it back to the bedroom, where he continued yelling and crying. CW #1 then called 911 and two police officers arrived. CW #2 advised that the Complainant had lost his mind and was out of control and would need help. CW #2 stated that the two officers, without speaking with anyone, went upstairs, later followed by two additional officers. The officers dragged the Complainant down the steps and outside; the Complainant was not resisting.

CW #2 stayed inside the house and could not see what was happening outside, but she heard the Complainant crying in pain and screaming, “Help me! Why?” and CW #1 called out to her that the police were using the ‘Taser’ on the Complainant. Although CW #2 did not hear the ‘Taser’ being deployed, she looked out and saw probes stuck in the Complainant’s body and one of the four or five police officers was holding the CEW in his hands.

CW #3 stated that at approximately 4:00 a.m., the Complainant began to yell at the other three occupants of the house. The Complainant got upset and he threw a door from the upper level down to the living room where CW #3 was able to stop it from hitting anyone, although he was unsure if it had struck CW #2. CW #1 then called 911 at about 4:30 a.m. and two police officers arrived, one of whom spoke to the three residents about what the Complainant had been doing.

The Complainant then went outside the front door area where he began to “freak out” again; at that time, there were three or more police officers present. CW #3 indicated that he remained inside the house and did not see the arrest, but heard yelling and the officers tell the Complainant that he was under arrest. CW #3 heard the Complainant resisting the police officers, who had to use a CEW. CW #3 stated that he did not hear any commands or warnings issued by police before the CEW was deployed and that the CEW was deployed for one to two minutes. CW #3 thought that the Complainant then dropped and landed on the ground on his face, where he was handcuffed with his hands behind his back.

For the reasons that follow, I am unable to place any credence in the evidence provided by the Complainant and the other three CWs and find that their evidence therefore does not rise to the level required in order to satisfy me, on reasonable grounds, that the interaction between police and the Complainant occurred as described in the versions of event as provided by any or all of the witnesses; those versions being extremely inconsistent with respect to many of the details. A sampling of those inconsistences follow:

The Complainant claimed that six to eight police officers attended on July 4^th, 2017 at his residence, with four attending in his bedroom, while CW #2 placed the number at four officers, all of whom went up to the bedroom. Based on the radio transmission recordings and record, it is clear that only three officers were dispatched to the residence, those being SO #2, who was dispatched at 4:14:20 a.m. and arrived at 4:23:05 a.m., SO #1, who was dispatched at 4:14:23 a.m. and arrived on scene first at 4:20:04 a.m. and SO #3, who was dispatched after the other two officers were already on scene, at 4:23:02 a.m. and arrived at 4:26:38 a.m. These records support the evidence of the three SOs that they were the only officers who attended and contradict the evidence of the Complainant and CW #2;

CW #2 stated that she observed the probes from the CEW stuck in the Complainant’s body, while both CW #3 and CW #1 advised that they heard the CEW being deployed with CW #1 indicating that she heard it deployed three times, first for a period of five seconds followed by two more bursts of ten seconds each, while CW #3 stated that he heard the deployment of the CEW for some one to two minutes. This evidence is directly contradicted by the Complainant himself, who never mentioned a CEW being deployed, as well as the download data from the CEW in SO #3’s possession, which confirmed the evidence of all three subject officers that no CEW was ever deployed;

CW #2 stated that the police went directly up to the Complainant’s room without ever speaking to anyone in the home, while CW #3 advised that he spoke to the two officers outside of the house and that one of the officers then entered and spoke with all three of the residents other than the Complainant. The evidence of CW #3 is confirmed by CW #1 and is directly inconsistent with the evidence of CW #2, but fully consistent with the evidence of the three subject officers;

CW #2 stated that the police officers dragged the Complainant down the stairs from his bedroom on the second floor and then outside even though the Complainant was not resisting police, while CW #1 advised that the officers called out to the Complainant and he willingly and calmly came downstairs to talk to them and they then coaxed him outside. The evidence of CW #1 is completely inconsistent with that of CW #2, but confirms the evidence of the three subject officers;

The Complainant claims he was taken to the police station and not to hospital, which is directly contradicted by both the video from the CKPS police station in the sally port area where the cruiser is seen to be driven inside the sally port area, WO #1 looks inside the cruiser and, before ever getting out of the car, the Complainant is then transported away again. The medical records of the Complainant also further confirm that he was then seen at the hospital;

The Complainant, in his statement, never makes any mention of throwing the bedroom door down the stairs, indicating only that he believes officers may have attended the residence after he broke a dresser. All three of the civilian witnesses clearly indicated that the bedroom door was thrown down the stairs by the Complainant and the door itself was located lying at the top of the stairs when the scene was examined by SIU investigators later that same day;

CW #2 stated that she was never struck by the door thrown by the Complainant, which is directly contradicted by CW #1, both in the 911 call and her statement to SIU investigators, that she saw the door strike CW #2 in the nose, as well as the evidence of SO #1, who was told that the door struck CW #2 and who observed a small cut on the bridge of CW #2’s nose consistent with where she was said to have been struck by the door;

Finally, while the Complainant described himself as never resisting police, as was the evidence of CW #2, CW #1 described the Complainant as possibly fighting back against police out on the patio while CW #3 described him as “freaking out” and heard him resisting the police officers. This evidence is again confirmation of the evidence of the three SOs.

In addition to the obvious inconsistencies between the evidence of the Complainant and the three CWs, as well as the evidence of all four CWs that was positively disproven by the physical evidence, CW #3 indicated that all four of the witnesses were under the influence of some type of drug, with CW #3 and CW #1 having smoked marijuana, while all four witnesses agreed that the Complainant and CW #2 had been injecting themselves with crystal methamphetamine prior to the interaction with the police. This evidence is further confirmed by the Complainant’s medical records wherein a toxicological screening found that the following drugs were in his system at the time that he was brought to hospital: methamphetamines, cannabinoids, ecstasy, methadone, benzodiazepines and amphetamines. Furthermore, when SIU investigators first approached the Complainant for a statement on the same date of the incident, he indicated that his nose had been broken by CW #2; which statement he denied the following day when again questioned by SIU investigators.

Based on the evidence of the three CWs as to the Complainant’s state of mind when they chose to call 911, that being that he was being psychotic and losing his mind with CW #2 explicitly indicating in the 911 recording that she feared for her life from him, the Complainant’s failure to even recall that he had thrown the door down the stairs, and his initial comments to SIU investigators that it was CW #2 who broke his nose, coupled with his blood/drug analysis, I have serious doubts that the Complainant has any real/accurate recollection of the incidents leading to his injury and, as such, I reject his evidence that a police officer punched him in the nose causing his injury.

On the basis of the evidence that is corroborated in some material fashion, I find as fact that only three police officers ever attended at the residence in response to the 911 call from CW #1; that the Complainant voluntarily came down from his bedroom at the request of the police and went outside with them; that at no time was a CEW deployed at the Complainant; and that the Complainant was injured when he fell to the ground with the officers, which is consistent with the evidence of CW #3 and the blood found on the patio and in the cat litter box. Having substantially rejected the evidence of the Complainant and the three CWs, it is however still clear that the Complainant’s nose was broken during his interaction with police and the question remains whether or not the injury was as a result of an excessive use of force.

On all of the credible evidence remaining, it is clear that SO #1 and SO #2 were dispatched to the residence in Chatham as a result of a 911 call that the Complainant was losing his mind and had thrown a door down the stairs. SO #1 arrived first and spoke to CW #3 outside of the residence, confirming the information from the 911 call. He was then joined by SO #2 and both entered the house. Having heard the noise coming from the Complainant up in his room, SO #2 then called for backup to attend with a CEW and SO #3 also attended. The Complainant then came out of his room, and as confirmed by CW #1, he willingly and voluntarily exited his bedroom, came down the stairs and left the house in the company of the two police officers who were then present. SO #3 stated that when he first arrived, SO #1 and SO #2 were already outside of the house with the Complainant, who he described as being shirtless and sweating heavily.

Once outside, as confirmed by the Complainant himself, he was told that he was under arrest for domestic assault and when SO #1 placed one handcuff on his hand, the Complainant jerked his hand away. SO #1 described the Complainant as being initially compliant but then, once his hands were placed behind his back, he began to struggle and became aggressive and SO #3 told the Complainant not to be combative or he might get “tased”, whereupon the Complainant got more upset and twisted his torso. All three officers indicated in their statements that due to the Complainant being shirtless and sweating profusely, it was difficult to get a grip on him in order to handcuff him.

When the Complainant pulled his arm away, SO #1 managed to grab the Complainant’s right arm while SO #3 had his left arm, but the Complainant continued to resist. Consequently, SO #1 delivered a knee strike to the Complainant’s right thigh, which allowed enough compliance for SO #1 to get his right arm behind his back and, almost simultaneously, SO #3 delivered two knee strikes to the Complainant’s upper left quadriceps as a distractionary technique. The Complainant, and all three police officers who were holding onto him, then fell to the ground with the Complainant falling face first and unable to break his fall as his arms were being held by the officers.

Once on the ground, SO #1 described the Complainant as continuing to flail and resist and SO #2 advised that he then delivered two knee strikes to the Complainant’s right shoulder area to gain compliance. SO #2 described the Complainant as flailing his head around, back and forth, and hitting it on the ground while SO #2 used positional control techniques to prevent the Complainant smashing his head. All three police officers then continued to struggle with the Complainant, but managed to get both hands cuffed behind his back, and they then stood the Complainant up and took him to a cruiser. SO #1 then noticed that there was blood on the ground and in the cat litter container. Not surprisingly, in the melee, although each officer delivered distractionary knee strikes to the Complainant’s body, none observed any other officer do so.

Once the Complainant was placed inside the police cruiser, both SO #2 and SO #3 observed the Complainant smash his nose and face off of the Plexiglas partition and metal bars on the rear passenger window while SO #1 heard the banging in the background, while SO #2 was making a radio broadcast, and later saw blood on both the bars on the window and the rear passenger seat.

On these facts, although there is the possibility that the Complainant’s nose was either broken, or his injury aggravated, by his banging inside the police cruiser, I accept that it is most likely that his nose was broken when he went to the ground with the three police officers and struck his face on the patio stones.

Pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, police officers are restricted in their use of force to that which is reasonably necessary in the execution of a lawful duty. Turning first to the lawfulness of the Complainant’s apprehension, it is clear from the 911 call, as confirmed by the three civilian witnesses at the scene, that the Complainant had thrown a bedroom door down the stairs and either struck or almost struck CW #2 and, as such, officers had reasonable grounds to believe that the Complainant had committed the offence of assault with a weapon (being the door) contrary to s. 267 of the Criminal Code. As such, the apprehension of the Complainant was legally justified in the circumstances.

With respect to the amount of force used by officers in their attempts to subdue the Complainant, I find that their behaviour was justified in the circumstances. On the facts here, where it had already been alleged that the Complainant had torn a door off its hinges and thrown it at his girlfriend, it was a real possibility that he was capable of injuring one of the officers, if not subdued.

Additionally, although I conclude that the Complainant’s injury was caused by the police officers going to the ground with him and the Complainant landing on his face, I find that pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, the officers involved used no more force than was reasonably necessary in the execution of their lawful duties in apprehending a resistant and combative male who was under the influence of mind altering drugs.

I also find that the Complainant being shirtless, and sweating profusely, proved a significant obstacle to the police officers in attempting to get a firm grip on the Complainant and contributed to their inability to arrest and handcuff him. I find that the degree of force with which the Complainant’s face struck the ground may have been greater than perceived by the officers as the momentum increased with the officers falling with him, and his inability to break his fall due to the police officers having control of his arms behind his back.

Additionally, I find that in the melee, with each officer being unaware that the other had deployed a distractionary knee strike in order to attempt to gain control of the Complainant, his falling to the ground was not expected and, as such, they were unable to exert the same type of control as they would have, had the grounding been deliberate.

In coming to the conclusion that the actions of these three police officers does not constitute an excessive use of force, despite the injury that was caused to the Complainant, I am mindful of the state of the law as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Nasogaluak [2010] 1 S.C.R. 206, as follows:

Police actions should not be judged against a standard of perfection. It must be remembered that the police engage in dangerous and demanding work and often have to react quickly to emergencies. Their actions should be judged in light of these exigent circumstances. As Anderson J.A. explained in R. v. Bottrell(1981), 60 C.C.C. (2d) 211 (B.C.C.A.):

In determining whether the amount of force used by the officer was necessary the jury must have regard to the circumstances as they existed at the time the force was used. They should have been directed that the appellant could not be expected to measure the force used with exactitude. [p. 218]

Additionally, I have considered the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Baxter (1975) 27 C.C.C. (2d) 96 (Ont. C.A.), that officers are not expected to measure the degree of their responsive force to a nicety. On this record, it is clear that the force used by each of the SOs progressed in a measured and proportionate fashion to meet and overcome the Complainant’s resistance and fell within the range of what was reasonably necessary in the circumstances to effect his lawful detention.

In the final analysis, I am satisfied for the foregoing reasons that the Complainant’s detention, and the manner in which it was carried out, were lawful notwithstanding the injury which he sustained and am therefore satisfied on reasonable grounds on this record that the actions exercised by the officers fell within the limits prescribed by the criminal law and there are no grounds for proceeding with charges in this case and none will issue.

Date: April 13, 2018

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit