Police Folk Allegedly Behaving Badly

[mariomike]

Well, he kinda was resisting …

Cameras everywhere now ...

Reminds me of the "I work for you." scene in Rampart.

 

[lenaitch]

Kinda-sorta fits the thread, but the SCOC has ruled that a police disciplinary matter that has been expunged from a member's service/employment record still has the be disclosed in a criminal trial.

Supreme Court of Canada | Edmonton (Police Service) v. McKee

www.scc-csc.ca

What has become known as a 'McNeil Report', police officers involved in a criminal prosecution have to disclose any disciplinary/misconduct records to the Crown. Most departments clear minor matters after a few years, but the Court said they may still be relevant.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Didn't use the shotgun... admirable self-restraint:

https://twitter.com/x/status/2070501686473306281

 

[Booter]

Kinda-sorta fits the thread, but the SCOC has ruled that a police disciplinary matter that has been expunged from a member's service/employment record still has the be disclosed in a criminal trial.

Supreme Court of Canada | Edmonton (Police Service) v. McKee

www.scc-csc.ca

What has become known as a 'McNeil Report', police officers involved in a criminal prosecution have to disclose any disciplinary/misconduct records to the Crown. Most departments clear minor matters after a few years, but the Court said they may still be relevant.

I would like to have better insight into municipal agencies on misconduct. I can’t think of a similar thing we would have in my outfit. Misconduct doesn’t ever “get removed”

 

[lenaitch]

I would like to have better insight into municipal agencies on misconduct. I can’t think of a similar thing we would have in my outfit. Misconduct doesn’t ever “get removed”

Community Safety and Policing Act (Ontario)

207 (1) A chief of police shall expunge an entry made in a police officer’s employment record respecting a disciplinary measure two years after the day the disciplinary measure was imposed if,​

​

(a) the disciplinary measure is described in paragraph 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 of subsection 200 (1); and​

​

(b) no other entries relating to disciplinary measures were entered into the officer’s employment record in the two years following that day. 2024, c. 2, Sched. 4, s. 4.​

​

Same​

​

(2) A chief of police shall expunge an entry made in a police officer’s employment record respecting a disciplinary measure five years after the day the disciplinary measure was imposed if,​

​

(a) the disciplinary measure is described in paragraph 1 of subsection 200 (1); and​

​

(b) no other entries relating to disciplinary measures were entered into the officer’s employment record in the five years following that day. 2024, c. 2, Sched. 4, s. 4.​

​

Subsection 200(1)

200 (1) Subject to section 201, a chief of police may impose any combination of the following disciplinary measures on a police officer who is a member of the chief’s police service, other than a deputy chief of police, if an investigation under section 198 or an investigation under Part X gives the chief of police reasonable grounds to believe that the officer has engaged in conduct that constitutes misconduct or unsatisfactory work performance:​

​

1. Suspend the police officer without pay for a period not exceeding 30 days or 240 hours, as the case may be.​

​

2. Direct that the police officer forfeit not more than three days or 24 hours pay, as the case may be.​

​

3. Direct that the police officer forfeit not more than 20 days or 160 hours off, as the case may be.​

​

4. Reprimand the police officer.​

​

5. Direct that the police officer undergo specified counselling, treatment or training.​

​

6. Direct that the police officer participate in a specified program or activity.​

 

[Booter]

we don’t do that- closest thing is written performance documentation logs being removed after two years. I’m not sure what purpose removing an entry like that would serve…

 

[brihard]

we don’t do that- closest thing is written performance documentation logs being removed after two years. I’m not sure what purpose removing an entry like that would serve…

I’m guessing the intent is career rehabilitation?

 

[Booter]

maybe you’re right- but it’s only a Career impediment if it is serious- and if it’s serious it should be known. I see lots of mcneils and it doesn’t really cause any issue. Most of them it’s determined to be irrelevant by crown.

It is entirely possible other jurisdictions see it differently I guess.

Our people keep them forever- I’ve seen two have career impact?

Of course that’s all anecdotal. I don’t honestly know how I feel about it either way. I didn’t know it was an issue

 

[brihard]

maybe you’re right- but it’s only a Career impediment if it is serious- and if it’s serious it should be known. I see lots of mcneils and it doesn’t really cause any issue. Most of them it’s determined to be irrelevant by crown.

It is entirely possible other jurisdictions see it differently I guess.

Our people keep them forever- I’ve seen two have career impact?

Of course that’s all anecdotal. I don’t honestly know how I feel about it either way. I didn’t know it was an issue

I agree with you. I’m just guessing as to the why.

Credibility in court and the right to a full and fair defence is distinct from a cop’s career progression concerns. I have no issue with expunged records remaining fair game for the former. Crown’s the goalie on that anyway.

I’ve seen some cops with some interesting shenanigans as a young buck make it pretty high up after getting their act together. Of course that’s also from a couple decades ago too before things started to really (rightly) tighten up.

 

[lenaitch]

Before it was codified (date unknown) I know the OPP had a disciplinary system that streamed resolutions in 'informal' and 'formal', and the informal records had a shelf life. I can almost guarantee that police associations had a role in this.

 

[Booter]

kinda seems like it would be an easy fix- so mcneils factor into selection for us AFTER the candidate is selected- it goes to a final review where the ability for the person to be in the position is gauged.

So everyone competes, candidate is selected- then their health profile/circumstances/ McNeil factor in.



But very interesting. Thanks @lenaitch.

It’s always an issue when the crown says they will no longer prosecute files when certain people are involved because of their McNeil and yet they stay employed. We don’t have a good answer for that still.

 

[brihard]

It’s always an issue when the crown says they will no longer prosecute files when certain people are involved because of their McNeil and yet they stay employed. We don’t have a good answer for that still.

I’ve got like five or six snarky answers for this but I won’t.

 

[Blackadder1916]

And from across the pond.

Two more officers dismissed over Charing Cross conduct

Both will be added to the College of Policing’s barred list to prevent them re-joining policing

news.met.police.uk

Two officers have been dismissed without notice for glorifying use of force against detainees at Charing Cross police station.

Accelerated misconduct hearings found allegations proven against PC Kheava Gould-Ryan and PC Fernando Santos Dos Santos, both attached to Central West Command Unit.

The behaviour of the two officers was caught on camera by the BBC filming Panorama – Undercover in the Police. Although not featured in the broadcast in October, extra unaired footage was later shared with the Independent Office for Police Conduct, whose investigation into the behaviour of a number of officers at Charing Cross continues.
. . .
“Ten serving officers have now been dismissed for their unacceptable conduct at Charing Cross and we continue to support the ongoing IOPC investigation.

They will be added to the College of Policing’s barred list to prevent them re-joining policing or working for a number of other police-related bodies.

https://www.college.police.uk/ethics/barred-list

The barred list shows all officers, special constables and staff members who have been dismissed from policing after investigations under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 or Police (Performance) Regulations 2020. It also shows the equivalents for police staff.

Individuals will remain on the list indefinitely, unless they either:

• win an appeal against their dismissal
• make a successful review application, where they would have to provide clear evidence as to why they were now suitable to re-join policing

Reviews cannot be requested for a minimum of:

• three years for gross incompetence dismissals
• five years for gross misconduct dismissals

Even a successful review does not guarantee a return to policing. The individual concerned has to apply for a post and successfully pass the vetting process, just like anyone else would.

 

[lenaitch]

kinda seems like it would be an easy fix- so mcneils factor into selection for us AFTER the candidate is selected- it goes to a final review where the ability for the person to be in the position is gauged.

So everyone competes, candidate is selected- then their health profile/circumstances/ McNeil factor in.



But very interesting. Thanks @lenaitch.

It’s always an issue when the crown says they will no longer prosecute files when certain people are involved because of their McNeil and yet they stay employed. We don’t have a good answer for that still.

It used to be not uncommon for 'problem children' to bounce around between smaller departments who either didn't care or didn't have the capacity to conduct deep background checks but, rather, rely on the glowing recommendation of their previous department. It happens less now since there are much fewer smaller departments.

 

[Booter]

It used to be not uncommon for 'problem children' to bounce around between smaller departments who either didn't care or didn't have the capacity to conduct deep background checks but, rather, rely on the glowing recommendation of their previous department. It happens less now since there are much fewer smaller departments.

Funny you say that- because it is a big thing out west we re people are on their 5-6 agency not making it to end of probation in each…a certain police force collected a bunch of them and now it could be a substantial issue for retention and performance

I’m glad Ont was able to sort that out