Police Folk Allegedly Behaving Badly
- Thread starter Bruce Monkhouse
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 6,980
- Points
- 1,160
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.
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.
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
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 46,906
- Points
- 1,160
Didn't use the shotgun... admirable self-restraint:
Booter
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,330
- Points
- 1,010
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”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
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.
- Reaction score
- 6,980
- Points
- 1,160
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.
I’m guessing the intent is career rehabilitation?
Booter
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,330
- Points
- 1,010
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
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.
- Reaction score
- 6,980
- Points
- 1,160
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
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,330
- Points
- 1,010
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.
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.
I’ve got like five or six snarky answers for this but I won’t.
Similar threads
