I told the Iron Horse that I will not blog the minutes of our meeting with the Minister a few weeks ago.
Minister John Foran asked Harold Doherty if he would put his concerns in writing?
The Iron Horse did just that!!!
My God!!! He's good!!!!
Here's the letter -
August 8, 2008
Honourable John W. Foran
Solicitor General and Minister of Public Safety
Argyle Place
364 Argyle Street
Fredericton, New Brunswick
E3B 1T9
Dear Sir:
Re: Charles LeBlanc Complaint
This is to confirm the concerns expressed in my visit to your offices on Tuesday, August 6, 2008 in respect of the above noted matter.
1) The RCMP conducted investigation found no evidence of perjury.
The finding of no evidence of perjury, as opposed to insufficient evidence of perjury, with respect to Sgt. Parks, as alleged in Mr.LeBlanc’s complaint, is difficult to accept in light of the evidence produced at trial, the findings of the learned trial judge and the information submitted with Mr. LeBlanc’s complaint.
2) The Findings of the Trial Judge
In Mr. LeBlanc’s trial on charges of obstructing justice he was acquitted by His Honour Judge McCarroll.
R. v. LeBlanc, Citation #2006NBPC37
http://www.canlii.org/en/nb/nbpc/doc/2006/2006nbpc37/2006nbpc37.pdf
Page 16
It is clear from the C.B.C. video that contrary
to what Sergeant Parks testified to, Mr. LeBlanc was off to his right some distance, not behind him. It’s likewise clear when reviewing the tape in slow motion, that contrary to what Sergeant Parks testified to, the defendant was not moving towards him just prior to his arrest. It is inconceivable to me after viewing the tape, how Sergeant Parks could have perceived the defendant, down on one knee, some distance from the protestors, taking pictures, as a threat.
Page 17
It is clear from the video that immediately upon turning the previously arrested Mr. Webber over to another officer, Sergeant Parks for some reason, went directly towards the defendant, grabbed him in the upper chest area,pushed him towards the far wall, and pinned him there. In his testimony, Sergeant Parks said that he did not touch the defendant until they were at the far wall.
Sergeant Parks justified his arrest of the defendant, not only on the basis that the defendant was behind him and that he posed a threat with his camera, and that he was moving towards him, but also because he refused a direct order from Sergeant Parks to leave the area.
After viewing the video many times at normal speed and slow speed, the conversation the officer said he had with Mr. LeBlanc prior to his arrest was not in any way apparent to me.
Pages 17-18
Sergeant Parks said the defendant was resisting somewhat and had to be taken to the floor in order to apply handcuffs,
yet the photo marked Exhibit “D” clearly shows
Sergeant Parks and Mr. LeBlanc strolling arm and arm from one side of the foyer to the other with no sign whatsoever of resistance from the defendant.
Page 20
The conflicting evidence in this case presents me with difficulties in arriving at a conclusion the accused is guilty as charged. There is such a discrepancy between the evidence of Sergeant Parks and the CBC video, that I find it unsafe to convict Mr. LeBlanc. I am not even satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that if Mr. LeBlanc was in fact ordered to leave by Sergeant Parks, he heard or understood the order. I have pointed out other serious inconsistencies between the evidence of Sergeant Parks and the video earlier on in this judgment.
Considering the evidence in it’s totality with all of the inconsistencies,I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Charles LeBlanc willfully obstructed Sergeant Parks in the execution of his duty.
His Honour Judge McCarroll is an experienced trial judge and a former Crown prosecutor. His choice of language in describing the several inconsistencies between the CBC video and Sgt. Parks is unusually strong in not accepting the testimony of an experienced police officer. As the decision makes clear, Judge McCarroll studied the evidence carefully, viewing the CBC video recording several times. The inconsistencies he found in Sgt. Parks evidence were not peripheral facts in the case. They were central to the charge of whether Mr. LeBlanc committed obstruction of justice and to Judge McCarroll’s decision to acquit.
3). Sgt. Parks’ Deletion of Photos on Mr LeBlanc’s Camera
Sgt. Parks stated in his file notes and in testimony that he saw and deleted only one picture from Mr. LeBlanc’s camera.
Constable Tanya Lawlor testified that Mr.LeBlanc had been on the scene throughout the day taking pictures.
Mr. LeBlanc did not testify in court but informed investigating RCMP Officer Delaney-Smith that he had taken many pictures that day and that they had all been deleted. He also informed her that the Canon camera he uses does not permit you to unknowingly delete all photos.
The CBC video shows Mr LeBlanc taking pictures of the demonstration in the opposite direction from Sgt Parks before he is arrested.
The last picture on the camera could not have been of Sgt Parks and he would have had to do a search of the camera in order to see a picture of himself.
All photos were deleted and that can not be done accidentally with this type of camera.
You either have to delete all pictures one at a time and therefore intentionally or you have to press delete all in which case the camera asks you to confirm that you want to delete all and then you have to perform another 2 steps by moving the cursor over to the right and pressing OK. A bright green line then shows you the progression of the deletion process.
Again, you can not unknowingly delete “all” on this Canon camera model. This information was presented to the first investigating officer Delaney-Smith.
4. A Second Officer Took Over the Complaint File
The RCMP investigation was initially conducted by RCMP Corporal Delaney-Smith. She spoke with me in addition to interviewing Mr. LeBlanc. I understood from my discussion that her report would be done in December.
In the new year there was no news and at some point I was informed that the file was being handled by Staff Sgt. Gary Belliveau.
It is understood that there may be more than one officer involved in a file for any number of innocuous reasons. In the circumstances of this case though, with an experienced trial judge pointing out, in strong language, several clear inconsistencies between Sgt. Parks testimony and the CBC video evidence, and an investigation conclusion of NO evidence of perjury Mr. LeBlanc is suspicious that the RCMP may not have liked the first investigating officer’s conclusions and then changed them. I share Mr. LeBlanc’s suspicion.
Respectfully,
Harold L Doherty
I received this email from the Minister last week -
Dear Mr. Leblanc:
I am writing to you in response to our meeting held on August 5th in my office. At that time we discussed your concerns related to the outcome of an RCMP investigation of allegations of perjury by a Saint John police officer.
Your specific concerns were directed at a statement in Mr. Quigley’s letter that the RCMP found no evidence of perjury in their investigation. Officials from the Policing Services Branch of my Department have discussed this further with the RCMP. To elaborate, the police will only lay charges when they feel they have sufficient evidence of the required elements of an offence to ensure a reasonable prospect of conviction in court under that offence. In this case, they concluded that their investigation did not yield sufficient evidence required to pass that test.
If you do not accept the outcome of an RCMP investigation, the appropriate process to follow is to initiate a complaint with the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, as that is the organization with a federal mandate to provide civilian oversight of the RCMP. Further information on this organization, including the proper process to initiate a complaint, may be found on the internet at http://www.cpc-cpp.gc.ca/. They may also be contacted by telephone at 1-800-665-6878.
Because your initial complaint to the New Brunswick Police Commission contained allegations of a criminal offence, which lay outside their jurisdiction, they followed proper procedure and referred the matter to me to request a police investigation. Now that the criminal investigation has been concluded, any other complaint you might have that would fall under the purview of the Police Act, such as a breach of the Code of Professional Conduct Regulation, may still be worthy of review by the New Brunswick Police Commission. They may be contacted at (506) 453-2069 for further advice in this regard.
If you have any further questions with respect to how to initiate either process mentioned above, please contact the Assistant Deputy Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, Mr. Dick Isabelle, at (506) 453-3603 or dick.isabelle@gnb.ca.
Thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention. I hope that the information provided in this letter is helpful to you in understanding the options you have for public oversight of our police forces.
Yours sincerely,
Hon. John W. Foran
Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General
c.c. Assistant Commissioner Darrell LaFosse, Commanding Officer, J Division RCMP
Mr. Peter Seheult, Chair, New Brunswick Police Commission
Mr. Dick Isabelle, Assistant Deputy Minister, Police, Fire and Emergency Services
So? What do you think? Scary?
You darn right it is!!!!
