News Release

News Release

SIU Concludes Shooting Injuries Investigation in Brampton

Case Number: 11-OFI-234   

Mississauga (27 January, 2012) --- The Director of the Special Investigations Unit (SIU), Ian Scott, has concluded that there are no reasonable grounds to charge two Peel Regional Police (PRP) officers with criminal offences in regards to the firearms injuries sustained by 24-year-old Terrence Roopchand in November of 2011.

The SIU assigned six investigators and two forensic investigators (FIs) to probe the circumstances of this incident.  The two subject officers declined to be interviewed and did not provide their duty notes, as is their right.  Four witness officers and nine civilian witnesses were interviewed.  SIU investigators conducted a canvas for additional witnesses, and searched for closed circuit television images relevant to the incident.  In addition, The SIU FIs collected physical evidence and seized exhibits relevant to the incident, including the motor vehicle owned and operated by Mr. Roopchand.  The firearms and respective magazines issued to the subject officers, and the projectiles, bullet jacket fragments and cartridge cases were submitted to the Centre of Forensic Sciences for analysis.  

The SIU investigation found that the following events took place on Sunday, November 13:
• In the late evening hours, Mr. Roopchand was driving his motor vehicle in the vicinity of Vodden Court and Vodden Street East in Brampton.  He was reportedly planning to meet a civilian relating to a plan to victimize her.  The police had been previously notified of the meeting, and the two subject officers were waiting for Mr. Roopchand’s arrival. The officers, who were wearing police uniforms with large ‘Police’ badges across their chests, hid behind some bushes on the north side of Vodden Street at the intersection of Vodden Court.  The civilian was waiting in full view at the intersection. 
• Mr. Roopchand arrived, driving a 1999 Chevrolet Malibu, and slowed down in an attempt to stop his vehicle near the civilian.  The vehicle stopped and the civilian opened the passenger door.  Almost simultaneously, the subject officers emerged from their place of concealment and shouted, “Stop. Peel Regional Police.”  While shouting these commands, one officer moved directly in front of Mr. Roopchand’s motor vehicle.  Instead of complying with the officers’ commands, he accelerated directly at the officer.  Civilian witnesses heard the sound of tires screeching.  The officers discharged eight rounds from their firearms at the complainant. 
• Mr. Roopchand continued to flee from the scene.  He later checked himself into Credit Valley Hospital and was treated for two firearms wounds – one bullet was lodged in his left elbow area, and the other caused a ‘through and through’ wound in his lower right leg. 

Director Scott said, “In my view, this use of force was justified under either s. 34 or 27 of the Criminal Code:  the subject officers were in the lawful execution of their duties in an attempt to arrest the complainant for his allegedly unlawful involvement with the civilian witness.  The complainant drove his vehicle directly at the subject officers creating, in my view, a reasonable apprehension of death or serious bodily harm in the minds of both subject officers – either for themselves or the other subject officer. Accordingly, they were justified in the use of potentially lethal force when they discharged their firearms eight times at the driver of this rapidly approaching motor vehicle.  As best as can be estimated, the distance between one of the subject officers and the vehicle accelerating toward him at the beginning of the firearms discharges was approximately 15 feet.”

The SIU is an independent government agency that investigates the conduct of officials (police officers as well as special constables with the Niagara Parks Commission and peace officers with the Legislative Protective Service) that may have resulted in death, serious injury, sexual assault and/or the discharge of a firearm at a person. All investigations are conducted by SIU investigators who are civilians. Under the Special Investigations Unit Act, the Director of the SIU must

• consider whether the official has committed a criminal offence in connection with the incident under investigation
• depending on the evidence, cause a criminal charge to be laid against the official where grounds exist for doing so, or close the file without any charges being laid
• publicly report the results of its investigations