D-051 - Adjudication Board Decision

A member faced three allegations of disgraceful conduct bringing discredit on the Force. It was alleged that the member had engaged in various acts of violence against his spouse over a period of nearly four years. At the adjudication board hearing, the member admitted the allegations and an agreed statement of facts was entered. The statement described several violent incidents. Approximately two years after the violence began, the police were called to the member's residence as a result of an altercation with his spouse. The member was then referred to a Force psychologist and undertook a group-therapy program for abusive men. Some two months after the therapy ended, the violence erupted again and continued for seven months, until the Appellant was eventually arrested and charged.

The Adjudication Board concluded that the allegations were established. On sanction, the member led evidence on his otherwise good character and his operational accomplishments. A psychiatrist testified that the member had suffered from a major depression throughout the period of time during which the assaults had been committed. A psychologist, with which the member had undertaken therapy after his arrest, testified that the member had made excellent progress in his therapy and was unlikely to re-offend.

The Board raised certain concerns about the medical evidence. The Board identified what it considered to be inconsistencies in the facts on which the medical opinions were based and stated that, although it accepted the diagnosis of depression, it questioned the degree to which the opinions were based on a complete historical background. The Board did not, however, elaborate on the effect of this questioning. In the end, the Board recognized that the member was working hard toward complete rehabilitation, but found that the mitigating factors in this case did not lessen the member's responsibility for his actions. The Board felt that the misconduct was serious enough that the member could no longer function as a police officer. The member was ordered to resign on pain of dismissal.

The member appealed this sanction. He first argued that the Board erred in questioning the factual background of the expert medical opinions. The member then argued that the sanction was excessive in light of this error.

The External Review Committee noted that the principal issue in this matter pertained to the mitigating effect to be given to the expert opinions. On that basis, the Committee decided to first examine the member's second argument and determine whether, in supposing that there was no difficulty in terms of weight and reliability to be imputed to the expert evidence, the sanction should have been different from that which was imposed by the Board. The Committee felt that, although the member's responsibility for his actions was diminished, because they were so closely related to his depression and thus became more understandable, it remained that the member bore an important portion of the blame for his misconduct. For the Committee, a specific problem with the member's case was the lack of explanation on file as to why the member had neither recognized his conduct nor sought help when, two months after he had completed the group therapy for abusive men, his violent behaviour erupted again and continued for some seven months until his arrest. In the end, the member had the primary responsibility to ensure that his behaviour stopped.

The evidence also indicated that the member's chances of re-offending were reasonably low. The Committee concluded, however, that this was a case where the overall gravity of the circumstances was such that the fact that the member is rehabilitated was not sufficient to overcome the employer's right to terminate the employment relationship. The Committee was satisfied that a reasonable person with knowledge of all of the circumstances of this matter would view the retention of the member by the Force as endangering the high level of trust and credibility which the Force now enjoys. As the above conclusion was based on the premise that there was no difficulty whatsoever, in terms of weight and reliability, to be imputed to the expert evidence, it was not necessary for the Committee to examine the member's argument that the Board erred in questioning the factual basis of the opinions. On September 16, 1997, the Committee thus recommended that the appeal be denied.

On November 21, 1997, the Commissioner accepted the Committee's recommendation and confirmed the Adjudication Board's order to resign.