D-110 - Adjudication Board Decision

The Appellant testified that she was sexually assaulted by her spouse. She later recanted that testimony. She pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of, giving contradictory evidence in a criminal proceeding. An Adjudication Board majority held that her transgression was disgraceful conduct amounting to a violation of the RCMP Code of Conduct. It found that she showed a lack of commitment to various core values of the Force. It also found that the seriousness of her conduct could not be outweighed by the mitigating factors, even though it accepted that she suffered from Battered Wife Syndrome (BWS) at the time of the wrongdoing. It directed her to resign within 14 days, or be dismissed. A dissenting Board member concluded that the evidence of BWS prevented him from finding that the Appellant had been wilfully deceptive. He would have imposed a sanction consisting of a reprimand, a forfeiture of 10 days' pay and a recommendation for transfer.

The Appellant submitted an appeal on the issue of sanction only.

The ERC found that the Board majority ordered a disproportionate sanction as a result of its failure to properly consider the causal connection between the Appellant's misconduct and BWS. Two expert witnesses gave uncontroverted evidence revealing that:

• the Appellant's BWS was linked to her history of suffering physical and mental abuse;
• the BWS rendered the Appellant susceptible to giving inconsistent statements which she believed were true;
• it was not uncommon for battered women to recant out of fear, or as a survival strategy;
• her actions did not form part of her personality, and would not affect her work; and,
• her counselling had a rehabilitative effect which made further misconduct unlikely.

The ERC found that the Board majority failed to inform its global analysis of the case with this crucial evidence, and that this was problematic in light of its finding that the Appellant was of good character and was an above-average employee with significant community support. The ERC also found that the Appellant's training and experience did not immunize her from the effects of BWS. It further found that compassion was a factor to be considered in this extraordinary case, even though a decision cannot be made on such a basis alone. It reached that finding because of the presence of BWS; a very serious condition which was not given appropriate weight. In the ERC's view, a reasonable person informed about the misconduct and the causal link to BWS would find that the Appellant's misconduct, while very serious, was unique and situational, and therefore, that it had a minimal effect on the policing profession and the public trust.

The ERC recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he allow the appeal. It further recommended that he impose the following sanction: a formal reprimand, recommendation for transfer and recommendation for continued counselling.

The Commissioner has rendered a decision in this matter, as summarized by his office:

In a decision dated February 17, 2012, Commissioner Paulson agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendations and allowed the Appellant's appeal of the Board's decision on sanction.

The Commissioner agreed with the ERC that the Board majority failed to properly consider the causal connection between the misconduct and battered woman syndrome, which was a crucial mitigating factor. The Commissioner pointed out that the contradictory testimony was only with respect to one issue: consent to a sexual act with her abusive husband. The evidence of experts showed that the misconduct could be explained by the effects of battered woman syndrome (such as cognitive inconsistency and minimizing). Further, the evidence revealed that the Appellant still did not know whether or not she had consented (again, according to the experts, likely due to the effects of battered woman syndrome). The Commissioner disagreed with the AO's submission that the importance of battered woman syndrome in this case was diminished because the Appellant was a trained peace officer. The Commissioner agreed with the ERC that the Force should display compassion in this extraordinary case, and pointed to the testimony of another member in this case, who stated, “She's a victim of domestic violence, and I think that if the Force didn't take that into consideration that our whole outlook on domestic violence is compromised.”

The Commissioner observed that battered woman syndrome also explained or ameliorated many of the aggravating factors considered by the Board. The Commissioner pointed out that the Appellant was remorseful, apologetic and provided evidence of her rehabilitation. Further, senior members of the Force and partners in the justice system would support her retention in the Force and work with her again. Considering all of the facts in this matter - the aggravating and the overwhelming mitigating factors, the sanctions imposed in similar cases, that the Appellant's actions were the result of an abusive relationship, that her testimony was specific to that relationship and totally different than her conduct in her everyday and work life, and that she had no therapy at the time - the sanction imposed by the Board majority was clearly unjust.

The Commissioner imposed a reprimand, a recommendation for continued counselling and a recommendation for a transfer.