D-084 - Adjudication Board Decision

One allegation of misconduct was presented against an RCMP member (the "Respondent") for having struck a prisoner in the face with a closed fist and an elbow. The incident was captured on videotape. The Respondent testified before an RCMP adjudication board (the "Board") that he had been concerned that the prisoner was on the verge of becoming violent and he therefore took what he considered to be necessary measures to subdue him. The incident occurred within an enclosed room of an RCMP Detachment to which the prisoner had been taken after being arrested by another RCMP member for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol. The Respondent encountered the prisoner in a hallway and was asked by him for advice as to whether he should agree to sign a statement promising to appear in court to answer a criminal charge. Although the Respondent encouraged him to sign the statement, the prisoner demurred and the Respondent therefore informed him that he would not be released. The prisoner refused to move, which required the Respondent to repeatedly push him with an open hand into a room where he intended to search him before placing him in a cell. A further discussion ensued inside that room and the prisoner leaned into the Respondent and accused him "of trying to be a tough guy and a cocky guy". The Respondent reacted by attempting to grab hold of the prisoner's neck so that he could turn him around and begin to search him. However, the prisoner foiled that attempt by dropping his head. The Respondent then kicked him in the knee and a civilian guard who was in the room tried to gain control of the prisoner from behind. Those efforts failed to subdue the prisoner who continued to put up resistance. The Respondent then struck him four times in the face with a closed fist and twice with an elbow, all the while uttering "I don't think that you quite understand". The prisoner stopped resisting and the Respondent was then able to search him. The prisoner was kept at the detachment overnight and released the next morning by an RCMP member who testified that he repeatedly apologized for his behaviour. An investigation into the incident was launched as the result of a public complaint made by the prisoner's father later that day. Two expert witnesses on the use of force and police control tactics defended the Respondent's use of force in these circumstances because the prisoner was displaying threatening and aggressive behaviour. They based their analysis on use of force models adopted by the RCMP and other policing agencies, a review of events displayed by the videotape of the altercation and taking into consideration the Respondent's explanation as to why he had struck the prisoner.

Two of the three Board members concluded that the Respondent's conduct was not disgraceful because he acted within the parameters of use of force procedures and the evidence established that the prisoner's actions represented a threat to the Respondent's safety. In a dissenting opinion, the Board's Chair stated that he considered the Respondent's conduct disgraceful, in part because he believed that the comment that the Respondent made to the prisoner as he was striking him indicated that he was trying to teach him a lesson, and in part because the prisoner was impaired and had not been provided with clear verbal direction.

The Board's decision is flawed because determining whether a member's conduct is disgraceful involves more than establishing whether the member breached established police procedures. Instead, the perspective that the Board was required to consider was that of a "reasonable person with knowledge of all relevant circumstances, including the realities of policing in general and the RCMP in particular". As a result, relevant factors that needed to be assessed included the Respondent's motivation for striking the prisoner, his own behaviour towards the prisoner before the altercation and whether it may have contributed to making the prisoner more agitated and the extent to which the Respondent endeavoured to consider other options to secure cooperation from the prisoner, such as verbal intervention. It was also relevant to consider the fact that the prisoner was highly intoxicated and that this may have affected his behaviour. The evidence indicates that there were numerous comments made by the Respondent both before and after the altercation which suggest that he was very frustrated with the prisoner and his frustration may have contributed to his decision to use force to subdue the prisoner. As well, he was unnecessarily provocative by using language that inferred a threat to inflict injury on the prisoner if he did not cooperate. Finally, the Respondent made inadequate effort to provide clear verbal direction to the prisoner, especially considering the fact that he knew him to be highly intoxicated.

The appeal should be allowed and a new hearing ordered.

The Commissioner agreed with the findings and recommendation of the Committee to allow the appeal and ordered a new hearing into the allegation.