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 sustained by a 16-year-old youth on December 17, 2016 during his arrest for break and enter.

Notification of the SIU

On Saturday, December 17, 2016, at 1:45 p.m., Peel Regional Police (PRP) notified the SIU of the Complainant’s custody injury.

PRP reported that on December 17, 2016, at 4:30 a.m., PRP officers arrested the Complainant after a foot chase following a break and enter. He was arrested in the rear yard of a residence in Mississauga.

PRP police officers had to help the Complainant over a fence after they arrested him and in the process, he fell and struck his head. He was taken to the hospital and examined, but no injury was discovered except minor swelling.

Later that day, the Complainant was taken to a second hospital out of an abundance of caution. At 1:19 p.m., PRP was advised by the hospital that the Complainant has a fractured right orbital bone.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

SIU Forensic Investigators responded to the scene and identified and preserved evidence. They documented the relevant scenes associated with the incident by way of notes, photography, sketches and measurements.

Complainant:

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

Civilian Witnesses

None

Witness Officers

WO #1  Interviewed

WO #2  Interviewed

WO #3  Interviewed

WO #4  Interviewed

Subject Officers

SO Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed.

The Scene

The scene was the rear yard of a residence in Mississauga, near the north fence. There was an aluminum step ladder near the fence and a section of lattice on top of the fence was broken. There were numerous footprints in the snow.

Scene Diagram

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence

The SIU canvassed the area for any video or audio recordings, and photographic evidence. Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) video from the PRP station was received. CCTV video from a nearby Tim Hortons was also secured.

Summary of the Tim Hortons CCTV

On December 17, 2016, at 4:24 a.m., two men were seen running south in the lot to the south side wooden fence and then jumped the fence and went out of sight. A police cruiser pulled into the lot and made a U-turn and drove out southbound onto Confederation Parkway. Other police cruisers and a K-9 unit arrived. WO #3 went to the fence by himself and then ran back to his police cruiser, retrieved his dog and began a track for the suspects.

Summary of the PRP CCTV

The SO drove into the sally port with the Complainant sitting in the back seat. The SO and WO #4 briefly spoke to each other and the SO escorted the Complainant into the booking area. WO #4 spoke with the Complainant. The SO escorted the Complainant back to the police cruiser and the police cruiser drove out of the sally port.

Communications Recordings

The SO explained he could see footprints in the rear yard of a residence. An unknown radio source announced contact with a suspect [now known to be the Complainant] in a shed. It was reported that, possibly, the Complainant injured himself on the fence during arrest.

Materials obtained from Police Service

Upon request the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from PRP:

• Communications recordings
• Audio Copy Report - Radio Transmissions
• PRP station CCTV
• Event Chronology
• Notes of WO #1, WO #2, WO #3 and WO #4
• Occurrence Details
• Procedure - Use of Force
• Procedure - Criminal Investigations, and
• Training Record – the SO

During the early morning hours of December 17, 2016, the Complainant and his co-accused were being pursued on foot by several PRP officers for an alleged attempted residential break and enter in the neighbourhood. The Complainant climbed several fences in an effort to evade the officers, but was finally located hiding in a shed in a fenced backyard.

The Complainant was ordered out of the shed, arrested for attempted break and enter and handcuffed. As a result of a gate that would not open, he was then removed from the backyard by having to climb, while handcuffed, up a ladder placed near the fence, lean over the fence, and be caught by the SO waiting on the other side. In the course of doing this, the Complainant fell onto his face. Once the SO got the Complainant upright, the Complainant attempted to pull away and was grounded, again falling onto his face.

The SO transported the Complainant to a PRP station, where it was decided that he needed to be taken to the hospital. He was diagnosed with a right orbital floor blowout fracture.

Section 348, Criminal Code - Breaking and entering with intent, committing offence or breaking out

348 (1) Every one who

1. breaks and enters a place with intent to commit an indictable offence therein
2. breaks and enters a place and commits an indictable offence therein, or
3. breaks out of a place after
   1. committing an indictable offence therein, or
   2. entering the place with intent to commit an indictable offence therein

is guilty

4. if the offence is committed in relation to a dwelling-house, of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life, and
5. if the offence is committed in relation to a place other than a dwelling-house, of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or of an offence punishable on summary conviction

Section 24(1), Criminal Code – Attempts

24 (1) Every one who, having an intent to commit an offence, does or omits to do anything for the purpose of carrying out the intention is guilty of an attempt to commit the offence whether or not it was possible under the circumstances to commit the offence.

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.

At approximately 4:00 a.m. on December 17, 2016, several PRP officers were pursuing the Complainant, a 16-year-old youth, and his co-accused on foot for an alleged attempted break and enter. The Complainant was located hiding in a shed in the backyard of a residence in the same neighbourhood. The backyard for that residence was fenced, comprising of a wooden fence with a wooden lattice at the top[1]. There was one gate to the street on the north side of the property near the garage, but it was barricaded[2]. The Complainant entered the backyard by jumping the fence, as did the police officers. Once the Complainant was located in the shed, he was arrested for the attempted break and enter and his hands were handcuffed behind his back. To remove the Complainant from the backyard, he was required to climb an aluminum step ladder that was located near the house and bend over the top of the fence, and a police officer on the other side of the fence would pull him over. When climbing over the fence, however, the Complainant fell, face first, onto the ground. The Complainant had an obvious and immediate injury to his face and, when taken to the hospital, was diagnosed with a right orbital floor blowout fracture.

It is important to start with the backyard. Below is a photo of the barricaded gate, the ladder used and the fence.

This is a close-up of the area where the Complainant went over the fence.

This is the opposite side of that fence, where the Complainant landed.

This is the fence on the other side of the house.

From the photos, it appears that the fence is approximately seven to eight feet (2.13 to 2.44 metres) high where the lattice is used, and six feet (1.83 metres) where it is not.

There were no civilian witnesses to this incident – only the Complainant and the police officers on scene. At the time of his injury, the Complainant was 16-years-old. His arrest report indicated that he was tall at the time. The Complainant alleges that following his arrest, he was punched by WO #2 in the ribs and stomach before going over the fence, and thrown and repeatedly hit on the face by the SO, causing his injury, after going over the fence.

The SO advised investigators that at 4:13 a.m., he received a radio call for a break and enter in progress. The SO was close by and arrived on scene immediately. In the backyard of the home that reported the attempted break and enter, the SO saw footprints in the fresh snow covered ground. He received further information that the suspects were running southbound. The SO hopped several fences and followed the footprints to a nearby plaza. At the plaza, the SO saw footprints behind a dumpster. WO #2 reported that he had a visual of the suspects in the parking lot of the Tim Hortons, and they had just fled south over a fence. The SO decided to go into the backyards to get a vantage point to see the suspects. The SO entered a backyard, jumped onto a fence, then on top of a shed, and began looking over the area to search for the suspects. He saw a dark figure, two or three houses over from his location. The SO immediately yelled out, “Police, don’t move”. The suspect ran towards a shed in that backyard. WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3 arrived in the backyard and the Complainant was located in the shed and told to come out. The SO could hear police officers saying, “Show me your hands, don’t move”, but did not see the Complainant arrested. The SO jumped down from the shed and was going to assist, when he heard WO #2 direct police officers to maintain the perimeter. The SO went back up onto the shed to look for the second suspect. The SO saw that WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3 were still in the backyard. WO #2 asked the SO to move his police cruiser to a closer road to transport the Complainant. He also told the SO there was no exit from the backyard. The SO got into his police cruiser and parked it near the outside of the fence to the backyard where the Complainant and the police officers were located.

The SO tried to get entry into the backyard, but realized the gate was boarded up and could not be opened. He estimated the fence was seven feet (2.13 metres) high[3]. WO #1 told the SO that the Complainant was handcuffed, and there was a ladder on the inside of the fence. WO #1 told the SO he was going to walk the Complainant up the ladder, and the SO was going to be catching the Complainant on the other side[4]. WO #1 said that was the only way to get the Complainant over the fence. The SO saw the Complainant’s head and shoulders above the fence, but did not see the Complainant’s hands. The Complainant doubled over forward and crushed the wood lattice on the top of the fence. The SO moved towards the fence and grabbed the back of the Complainant’s jacket collar as the Complainant leaned forward. Suddenly, the Complainant’s feet went completely vertical and the Complainant went from leaning on the fence to straight up in the air. The Complainant said, “Oh shit” and fell straight down on his face to the snow covered ground. The Complainant’s face made contact with the ground fairly hard. The Complainant slid forward onto his stomach and swore a couple of times. The SO grabbed the Complainant on the left side and saw the Complainant had his hands handcuffed behind his back. The SO instructed the Complainant to get up, which he did. The Complainant seemed very agitated and extremely tense. The SO told the Complainant they were going to the cruiser and, with both his hands on the left arm of the Complainant, forced him to walk. After five or six steps, the Complainant jolted and broke free of the SO’s left hand. The SO still had his right hand on the Complainant’s left arm. He grabbed the back of the Complainant’s jacket and grounded the Complainant to gain and maintain control of him. The Complainant went straight to the ground hard with his face hitting the ground. The SO put a knee on the small of the Complainant’s back and told the Complainant he was not going anywhere. The Complainant began to cry and apologize.

The SO got the Complainant up and saw a drop of blood on the ground. At the cruiser, the SO saw a minor injury to the Complainant’s right cheekbone and eyebrow area. The SO noticed the injury was slightly swollen. The SO took the Complainant to the station and noticed the Complainant’s injury was worse and swollen. The SO informed WO #4 about why the Complainant was there. WO #4 told the SO to transport the Complainant to the hospital. WO #4 asked the Complainant how he received the injury and the Complainant said he fell over the fence.

WO #2 told investigators that at 4:10 a.m., he heard a radio call regarding an attempted break and enter, and he made his way to the area. As WO #2 drove, he saw two men who matched the description walking south and into the parking lot of a shopping plaza. WO #2 next saw them standing at the Tim Hortons against a tall wooden fence. They turned and looked at WO #2. WO #2 exited his police vehicle and asked them to stop, but both men turned and jumped over the tall wooden fence. WO #2 climbed onto the fence to see where the suspects might be, and saw the SO standing atop a similar fence of another backyard about four backyards away. WO #3 also arrived. The SO said over the police radio he had seen one man, but lost sight of him; however, there were footprints in the snow leading to a shed in the yard he was looking into. WO #2 returned to his police cruiser and drove to the area where the SO was located. WO #2 stopped and could hear WO #3’s dog barking in the backyard of the property, and police officers shouting at someone. WO #2 scaled the fence and as he landed in the backyard, he saw WO #1 and WO #3 already there. The shed door was open and the Complainant was crawling out. WO #2 checked the shed, but there was no one else inside. WO #1 handcuffed the Complainant with his hands behind his back. WO #3 and his dog climbed back over the fence and left. WO #2 walked to an exit gateway from the yard, but it was barred and locked and had several cinder blocks preventing it being opened. WO #2 was aware that the SO was standing outside the fence on the north side, and saw a metal three foot (0.91 metres) step ladder on the ground in the yard. WO #2 opened the ladder and placed it against the wooden fence close to where he thought the SO was located. WO #2 believed that WO #1 could extract the Complainant by using the ladder to assist him over the fence. WO #2 did not believe that the handcuffs should be removed. WO #2 heard over the radio that the second suspect was being tracked, and as he left the yard to assist, WO #1 was walking the Complainant up the ladder in an effort to exit the yard. WO #2 did not see how the Complainant was helped over the fence or the outcome.

WO #1 told investigators that at 4:13 a.m., he received a call that two men had attempted to break into a residence, and was assigned to patrol for the suspects. Responding to information on the radio from WO #2, WO #1 went to a backyard in the area. The SO was in a nearby backyard. A short time later, the SO yelled to WO #1 he thought he saw a suspect in a backyard just north of his location, who may be hiding in a shed. WO #1 met WO #2 and WO #3, and WO #1 and WO #3 climbed over the fence into the backyard. The police dog started barking near a shed. WO #1 opened the shed door and saw that the Complainant was inside. WO #1 told the Complainant to exit the shed and get down on the ground, but the Complainant did not comply. Eventually, the Complainant exited the shed and went prone onto the ground and crawled towards WO #1. WO #1 handcuffed the Complainant with his hands behind his back, and informed him that he was under arrest for attempted break and enter. The Complainant said he did nothing wrong and asked what was going on. WO #1 assisted the Complainant up from the ground. WO #1 told investigators that there were two gates in the backyard, on each side of the house, but they were both frozen shut by snow[5]. As there was a step ladder near the fence, WO #1 told the Complainant he would be put over the fence and transferred to another police officer[6]. By that point, WO #3 and WO #2 had left, although WO #1 did not know how they exited the backyard or where they went. As the Complainant had been reluctant to come out of the shed and had been evading police officers, WO #1 was concerned about removing the handcuffs from the Complainant. As well, as the Complainant did not, himself, ask for the handcuffs to be removed or reapplied to the front of his body, WO #1 did not believe it was necessary[7]. WO #1 told the Complainant to step up on the ladder, and held the Complainant as he did. At the top step, WO #1 told the Complainant that the SO, who was on the other side, would take hold of him and bring him down. WO #1 held onto the Complainant’s waist and directed him to bend his upper torso onto the top of the fence. WO #1 asked the SO if he was good and the SO said he was. WO #1 began getting the Complainant over the fence, and the Complainant slowly slid over the fence while WO #1 moved his hands down. When he got to the knee area, however, WO #1 heard, “Oh, shit” and the Complainant slid over the fence and there was a thud noise. WO #1 did not hear a struggle on the other side, and climbed up the ladder and jumped the fence. The fence cracked and splintered when he went over it. WO #1 saw the SO in his police cruiser and the Complainant in the back seat. WO #1 estimated that about two to three minutes had passed from the time he put the Complainant over the fence.

On December 17, 2016, WO #3 was working as a member of the K-9 unit with his police service dog when he received the call at 4:08 a.m. that two suspects had just attempted to break into a residence. WO #3 advised investigators that he drove to the area to assist. Arriving at 4:29 a.m., WO #3 parked in a nearby Tim Hortons parking lot and received further information that the two suspects were seen jumping over fences of homes. WO #3 and his dog proceeded through various backyards in the area until they located a shed where the dog immediately went to the door of the shed and exhibited behaviour indicative of someone being inside. WO #3 opened the door and a voice was heard from inside. WO #1 and WO #2 were present and the Complainant was brought from the shed and laid out in a prone position on the ground. As soon as WO #3 realized the Complainant was in custody, he and the dog left the immediate area to track and locate the second suspect. WO #3 did not see the Complainant being removed from the rear yard nor did he witness how the Complainant was brought over the fence from the yard.

WO #4 was also interviewed, and advised that on December 17, at 5:40 a.m., the SO pulled into the sally port with the Complainant. WO #4 immediately noticed the Complainant’s right eye was swollen almost closed and there was a slight bluish tinge and scrape above his eye like a road rash. WO #4 instructed the SO to take the Complainant to the hospital for treatment to his eye. The Complainant said he was fine, that he fell. No other details were given by either the Complainant or the SO. WO #4 told the Complainant he would need to go to the hospital. The Complainant stood up and the SO took the Complainant to his police cruiser and they left for the hospital.

My first consideration in analyzing whether I have reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence has been committed is whether I can accept the Complainant’s allegations as truthful or even reasonable in the circumstances. The Complainant does not allege that he received the injuries to his face from the fall over the fence. Rather, the Complainant alleges that he received a lengthy and vicious beating at the hands of both WO #2 and the SO. I accept that the Complainant told WO #4, however, that he “fell” when asked about his injury (although the SO was present for that statement and perhaps the Complainant was reluctant to say what really happened while he was there). Upon a review of the Complainant’s medical records, it is clear that the Complainant did not make any statements regarding how he received his injuries beyond that he “fell”. Any descriptions in the medical records of how the Complainant sustained the injury, given the details included, clearly came from the accompanying police officers and / or were repeated by one medical professional to another. Again, the reluctance to be forthcoming at the time would not be surprising as the Complainant was still in custody and had not yet been processed. Further, the SO was present with the Complainant throughout his attendance at the first hospital and other police officers were present throughout the second. The only comments in the records relating to information that appears to come directly from the Complainant state that the youth was unable to say when he fell or from what height. This supports my conclusion that at most, the Complainant again only repeated that he “fell” to hospital staff. I am not concerned, however, that the Complainant made inconsistent statements to various people that day by claiming the injuries were caused when he “fell” rather than as a result of a lengthy beating at the hands of his accompanying police officer. No one, including the Complainant, disputes that he fell. And any statements made by the Complainant were made in the presence of the police officer the Complainant felt was responsible, or other police officers.

More difficult to reconcile however, if one is to accept the Complainant’s account of his encounter with police, is the fact that the medical records describe the Complainant’s only injury as cuts and swelling to his right eye, which is confirmed by the photos taken by investigators. From a review of the records from both hospitals, it appears that there were no other observed bruises or marks or noted or reported tenderness to any other part of his body. Nor do the photos reveal any other injuries to the Complainant’s face. This is concerning as one would reasonably expect there to be some physical indication arising from the lengthy and brutal beating by fists and knees and batons as alleged by the Complainant. But there was nothing except the obvious swelling and cuts around the Complainant’s right eye.

The Complainant’s lack of truthfulness when discussing the person he was with that morning, and the corresponding attempt to minimize his role in the events, brings his credibility into question and requires me to look for some corroboration of his allegations before accepting them as reasonable. Unfortunately, the medical records and photographs do not support the allegations of the beatings by either WO #2 or the SO. As a result, I cannot find that the Complainant was beaten by the SO as he claims, and so cannot conclude that the injury to his right eye was caused by such a beating.

So how did the Complainant’s eye get injured? One possible cause of the injury was the Complainant falling from the fence face first onto the ground below. Given the Complainant’s height, the height and instability of the fence and lattice, and that he went over the fence face forward with his hands handcuffed behind him so that he could not balance his body or break his fall, it is reasonable to expect that there could be such a resulting impact injury as a broken orbital bone. The SO also described to investigators a subsequent grounding of the Complainant just moments after his fall, when he hit the ground hard, again face first. It was at that point that the SO noticed blood on the ground, and so the fracture could also have occurred then. Or it could have occurred just moments earlier, from the fall, and the first indication of blood occurred after the grounding. With regards to this grounding, WO #1’s account does not corroborate the SO as he indicates that he did not hear a struggle from the other side of the fence after the Complainant fell, and when he climbed over the fence himself, and located the SO and the Complainant in the cruiser, only two to three minutes had elapsed. However, that being said, neither does his evidence contradict the SO’s account, as the grounding as described was quick and did not involve shouting or a prolonged struggle.

In either scenario, the Complainant’s injuries to the right side of his face occurred while he was with the SO. The question, therefore, becomes whether the SO should be held criminally responsible for them. If the Complainant’s injuries occurred as a result of the fall to the ground, the SO’s evidence was that as the Complainant was coming over the fence, he moved towards the fence and grabbed the back of the Complainant’s jacket collar. The Complainant’s feet, however, went unexpectedly straight up in the air and he fell straight down on his face. Such a result was clearly unexpected to the police officer. The SO had not been in the backyard and, given the nature of the fence, he could not see through into the backyard. So he had no idea what the conditions on that side of the fence were, what the ladder looked like or how tall it was, how it was being used, or the Complainant’s height or the nature of his clothing at the time. From his notes, the SO did know that the Complainant was handcuffed with his hands behind his back, so would have difficulty navigating his way over without assistance. And the SO knew he was required to grab the Complainant as he had come over to prevent a fall. Unfortunately, as the SO grabbed the Complainant’s coat, some event occurred on the other side of the fence that he was unaware of, and the Complainant came over in one movement, with all his height and weight. I accept that the SO could not stop him from falling. Accordingly, as far as the SO’s involvement in the fall over the fence goes, it was an accident that he was unable to prevent and he should not be held liable for any resulting injury to the Complainant.

A different set of considerations, however, govern if the Complainant’s injuries resulted from the SO’s subsequent grounding of him. The SO told investigators that after the Complainant fell, he seemed agitated and tense, and the SO was required to pull him towards the cruiser. After a few steps, the Complainant jolted and broke free of the SO’s one hand. The SO was alone at the time, and it was imperative that he maintain control of the Complainant who was under arrest and a second suspect remained outstanding. As a result, the SO pulled the Complainant towards him with his right hand to get the Complainant off balance, placed his left hand on the back of the Complainant’s neck and pulled the Complainant into the centre of his body mass. The Complainant went straight to the ground hard, his face again hit the ground, and the SO put his knee on the small of the Complainant’s back. 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. I have no doubt that the SO was in the lawful execution of his duty at the time he grounded the Complainant, given that the youth had already been arrested for attempted break and enter and was being escorted to the cruiser. With regards to the amount of force used in the grounding, I note from the photos of the scene that the area where the grounding occurred was snowpacked at the time, which may have affected the actual outcome of the intended grounding. Given that the SO’s efforts were limited to pulling the Complainant off balance and to the ground and then putting his knee on the Complainant’s back, I find that he used no more force than necessary to control the Complainant and his actions were justified in the circumstances. The jurisprudence makes clear that while police officers’ actions must be commensurate with the task at hand, they cannot be expected to measure their responsive force to a nicety (R. v. Baxter (1975), 27 C.C.C. (2d) 96 (Ont. C.A.)) or to be judged against a standard of perfection (R. v. Nasogaluak, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 206). I have no reasonable basis to believe that the SO has committed a criminal offence and there are no grounds for proceeding with charges against him in this case.

Finally, I have considered whether the offences of criminal negligence or failure to provide the necessities of life were made out in this case. While the decision of WO #1 and WO #2 to remove the Complainant from the backyard by putting him over the fence while handcuffed with his hands behind his back was ill-advised and not well considered, it does not reach the level of being a marked and substantial departure from the conduct of a reasonably prudent person in the circumstances, let alone amount to a wanton and reckless disregard for the well-being of an individual such that an offence of criminal negligence causing bodily harm might be made out.

Date: October 13, 2017

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit