No Charges For Off Duty Cop

[Donald G]

Deleted in favour of the comments from KL-3 Something that follow.

[KL3-Something]

Their track record would include their investigation and recommendation for criminal charge of 2nd degree murder against the Delta ERT officer, Jordan McWilliams. The charge was eventually stayed when the Crown Attorney's office said that "the available evidence no longer satisfies its charge approval standard for the continued prosecution of Const. MacWilliams for any criminal offence." Obviously the IIO case was seriously botched.

Wrong.

The IIO doesn't make any charge recommendations. Ever. They are mandated to conduct their investigations and forward a Report To Crown Cousel when their investigation reveals that a police officer, on duty or not, may have committed an offence. That offence could be a traffic violation or a serious criminal offence. Once the Criminal Justice Branch (Crown Counsel) receives that report they then decide what, if any, charges are appropriate. Before they proceed with a prosecution, however, they have to determine whether or not: 1) the prosecution is in the public interest, and; 2) that there is a substatial likelihood of conviction.

When the police have reasonable grounds to believe that someone has committed a particular offence they forward a Report to Crown Counsel recommending particular charges. Once the Criminal Justice Branch (Crown Counsel) receives that report they then decide what, if any, charges are appropriate. Before they proceed with a prosecution, however, they have to determine whether or not: 1) the prosecution is in the public interest, and; 2) that there is a substatial likelihood of conviction.

It all comes down to threshold when determining whether or not to proceed:

IIO - may have committed an offence
Police - reasonable grounds to believe a specific offence(s) has/have been committed
Criwn Counsrl - substantial likelihood of conviction while in the public interest

Nothing to get in twist over. The IIO is just working within their mandate

[KL3-Something]

Here, peruse their website:

http://iiobc.ca/2015/11/13/iio-update-november-13-2015/

Their mandate is clearly stated. That is why they use that terminology. They may have absolutely no doubt that a police officer committed a very specific offence. But they don't make any specific recommendations. They just lay out the facts in a report, and if it surpasses the "may have committed an offence" threshold, then that Report to Crown Counsel is forwarded to the Criminal Justice Branch for their consideration.

Still beats the perception of the police investigating police.

[Treblehook]

Here, peruse their website:

http://iiobc.ca/2015/11/13/iio-update-november-13-2015/

Their mandate is clearly stated. That is why they use that terminology. They may have absolutely no doubt that a police officer committed a very specific offence. But they don't make any specific recommendations. They just lay out the facts in a report, and if it surpasses the "may have committed an offence" threshold, then that Report to Crown Counsel is forwarded to the Criminal Justice Branch for their consideration.

Still beats the perception of the police investigating police.

Surely you are not defending their investigation and report to Crown Counsel regarding the charges against the Delta police officer [ERT]. I have no issue with the concept of an IIO doing investigations of police actions. That is a good thing! But, when one considers cases like the McWilliams [2nd degree murder], it is difficult to conclude that our IIO in British Columbia is able to do the job. Obviously, the fact that the charge was stayed following a review of the IIO investigation, says there was some serious deficiency or inaccuracy in the nature of evidence purported to exist in the report to crown by IIO in the first instance. One can only imagine the devastating impact on that cop that resulted from his being charged with murder.

[KL3-Something]

I lay that completely at the feet of the Criminal Justice Branch and whomever was responsible for the charge assessment/approval.

[Treblehook]

I lay that completely at the feet of the Criminal Justice Branch and whomever was responsible for the charge assessment/approval.

Certainly won't argue with you on this point, as almost without exception, I would agree with almost everything you have posted that I have read. That having been said, something occurred on the McWilliams case that should not have occurred. The crown makes their decisions based on the criteria you stated after having reviewed the report[s] supplied by the police, or in this case as supplied by the IIO investigators. If you read as much as is available to be read about the McWilliams prosecution, it seems there is a very high possibility that there was something substantially wrong with the evidence they submitted in the first instance, AND on subsequent review of the investigation it was determined that there was not sufficient evidence for the crown to lay any charge for any offence. Huge leap from a 2nd degree murder indictment to no charge at all.

[Ken7]

Anyone else tired of these news reports/statements attributed to the IIO, where they say: "..the officer may have committed an offense." What in the world could a comment like that mean, especially in the context of a fatal motor vehicle accident? Did they mean they haven't completed their investigation at the time of the statement, and therefore don't know? Did it mean their investigators were not able to determine what happened? If that is the case, it defies reason that they would issue a public statement saying the officer may have committed and offense!!!! To say he might have, but they were unable to gather sufficient evidence to support a charge is out of line by any standard. They would serve us all better if they were to simply say that their investigation did not uncover evidence to support any criminal wrongdoing by the officer[s] involved. The [reported] witness statements/investigation suggest that the young person had crossed three lanes of traffic, at night while wearing dark clothing, before colliding with the officer's car. It appears the IIO had insufficient evidence to support the contention that the officer may have committed an offense, so why the hell would they make a statement like that? IMHO that cluster of incompetents ought to be disbanded once and for all. We all know that police work is difficult enough without having an apparent agenda driven group like IIO making comments of this nature!!

I guess one must understand Law better to pass Judgment.

You can be rest assured that the IIO sent their file into the Crown Prosecutor and there was obviously insufficient evidence or likelihood of conviction so they therefore did not recommend a charge. It happens, even in the case where a Civilian is the accused.

[Donald G]

To Treblehook ...

Also a huge leap from your initial belief that a charge of 2nd degree murder should have been laid and proceeded with and the Crown Prosecutors' (notice the s on prosecutors) finding that, in their collective opinion, there was not sufficient evidence to support the charge.

The choice of words of both the IIO and reporter were misleading to many people who are not familiar with the criminal court system. Hopefully, thanks to comments from Ken7 it has been cleared up.

[Treblehook]

To Ken7 and Donald G. The problem as I see it with this case was this: The IIO did their investigation and sent their report to the CA for their consideration and direction in respect to any charges that might be preferred against the officer. On the basis of that initial report, the CA directed a charge of 2nd degree murder be laid against McWilliams. At some point later, the Crown either directed to or elected to do an in depth review of the investigation conducted by the IIO and to seriously scrutinize the "evidence" as presented through the IIO investigation. At that point... the crown came to the conclusion that the evidence was not sufficient to meet their charge approval criteria. It is safe to assume that none of the evidence mysteriously disappeared or evaporated and it is sure as hell clear that the criteria for charge approval by the Attorney General's office did not change. Perhaps you have some explanation for the crown staying proceedings with the comment that "the available evidence no longer satisfies its charge approval standard for the continued prosecution of Const. MacWilliams for any criminal offence." We are not talking about a lesser criminal charge here; rather, a charge of murder against a police officer!! Who screwed up here. Was it the Crown Attorney who first directed the charge or was it a seriously flawed IIO investigation? My guess is the investigation was flawed and the crown attorney should have picked up on the shortcomings during his/er initial review. There has been plenty written about this fiasco by some fairly knowledgeable people.. and what has been said has been less than favorable in terms of the competence of the IIO.
http://www.primetimecrime.com/contribut ... cooper.htm
https://leoknight.wordpress.com/2015/07 ... sino-case/

[Donald G]

If all of the evidence AVAILABLE was collected and forwarded to Crown Counsel by the IIO in the first instance I am not sure that the IIO can be blamed for Crown laying a charge and then, for an unstated reason, later deciding that the evidence available was inadequate to support "a reasonable chance of a conviction". Keep in mind that the restrictions on the IIO to collect evidence is the same as for the police and as dictated by the rules of evidence set by the Criminal Court judiciary.

The change in assessments could have been caused by a large number of things, including;

1. Were the assessments made by different Crowns Council with different experience ??
2. Was there a different interpretation offered for key evidence ??
3. Was a witnesses evidence discredited by alternate evidence gathered after the initial decision to charge was made ??
4. Did the probability of of any of the exhibits being entered change ??

Given the information released it is impossible to determine why Crown changed their decision to prosecute the charge.

[Treblehook]

There is nothing wrong with what you are saying Donald G, but from what I have read on this case, the decision not to proceed was based primarily on the fact that the IIO investigation was wanting in a number of areas. I read one piece where it was stated that the IIO didn't bother to interview and take statements from key witnesses in the first instance; and the evidence obtained when they were finally interviewed cast a different light on the incident and the officer's actions. Any competent investigator [today] knows that every stone must be turned over and the most minute of detail determined on homicide investigations. As I see it, there is no excuse for this kind of incompetence.

[mexi cali]

Keep in mind that the restrictions on the IIO to collect evidence is the same as for the police and as dictated by the rules of evidence set by the Criminal Court judiciary.

I don't know that there are any restrictions on collecting evidence. The restrictions come in when decisions are made as to what is admissible or not but I would think that all "evidence" is collected.

[Donald G]

To mexicalidreamer ...

I am sorry to say that any police investigator who follows the law dictated by the rules of evidence can SELDOM collect all of the evidence that would be available if the police had wider powers to collect evidence.

If the police knowingly disregard the rules of evidence when investigating ANY offence, no matter how serious, the charges can be and sometimes are arbitrarily dismissed. That actually happened here in Kelowna when a man who had kidnapped, sexually assaulted, murdered and buried a young female child.