Ontario Civilian Police Commission
IN THE MATTER OF The POLICE SERVICES ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, as amended
BETWEEN:
CONSTABLE KENNETH R. GEDDES Appellant
-and-
LONDON POLICE FORCE Respondent
DECISION
Panel: W.D. Drinkwalter, Q.C., Chairman Frank Marc D'Andrea, Member
Hearing Date: April 26, 1989 Hearing Location: Toronto, Ontario
Ontario Civilian Police Commission 250 Dundas Street West, Suite 605 Toronto, Ontario M7A 2T3 Tel: 416-314-3004 Fax: 416-314-0198 Website: www.ocpc.ca
Presiding Members: W.D. Drinkwalter, Q.C., Chairman Frank Marc D'Andrea, Member
Appearances: J.R. Caskey for the local Board Deputy Chief Cunningham for the Force Michael Epstein for the Appellant
Hearing Date: April 26, 1989
- Constable Geddes was charged with deceit, it being alleged that he "negligently made an inaccurate statement pertaining to official duties, contrary to Section 1, Clause D, Paragraph (ii) of the Code of Offences." The charge was particularized as follows:
"The accused officer was on duty on March 12th, 1987 at which time he arrested one Richard Moody on charges under Section 237(a) and 237(b) of the Criminal Code. In his duty book, the officer recorded the facts indicating that he observed Richard Moody enter the vehicle, drive from the parking lot and drive through a red traffic signal at which time he pulled the vehicle over. The same facts were reported in the case history and similar evidence was given at a provincial court hearing against Richard Moody on November 23rd, 1987.
The accused officer was required to submit a report relating to the occurrence at which time he indicated that he was not aware the driver was Mr. Moody until he stopped the vehicle.
The statement was inaccurate and the accused officer was negligent in not referring to his duty book for the purpose of completing his reports."
The Moody incident was aired in provincial court following which the presiding judge was very critical of police conduct. The local newspaper published the story and accordingly the police force had been publicly criticized. For this reason Constable Geddes was asked to submit a report on the incident.
It is not conceded by the appellant that a report was in fact signed or submitted. A document was prepared, however, and it is conceded that that document was inaccurate due to negligence. Constable Geddes had prepared the document without reference to his notes taken at the time.
The appellant argued two positions. First he argued that the document does not constitute a report inasmuch as it was not signed and secondly that the document was not submitted to anyone and thus ought not to have been relied upon for any purpose.
Constable Moody typed a draft which clearly was intended to be the foundation of the report. He signed that draft and it appears to be a report and certainly it is in a form which would be fit to be submitted as required. The appellant then gave a draft to a clerical person with a note saying "please have a look at this report. You may want to re-type it and have me sign." The words "you may want to" have been altered by pen so that the document reads "would you please re-type it and have me sign". The document was re-typed but apparently the inaccuracy was discovered before the document was presented to Constable Geddes for his signature. The inaccuracy was not brought to light by Constable Geddes but rather by other members of the force.
We are satisfied that this document in fact does constitute the report in question. There was nothing put before us to suggest that the appellant intended to alter or re-write the document in any way. His memo to the typist indicates to us that he was content with the content of th report and this is confirmed by his signature on the draft which he typed himself.
- It is also argued by the appellant that the document was not "submitted". While this may be true in a literal or technical sense, nevertheless the document was placed in the system and there is no indication of any effort by Constable Geddes to withdraw the document. For the above reasons the appeal from conviction fails.
Penalty:
The appellant was ordered to forfeit five days' pay and argues that this is excessive in view of the nature of the conduct.
It must frequently happen that Occurrence Reports and other reports submitted by police officers are inaccurate in some respect because of some degree of carelessness or lack of attention to detail. This document, however, is distinguishable from such other routine preparations because in this case the police force had been publicly criticized and the chief was attempting to discover the facts in order that he could respond on behalf of the force to that criticism. Thus the matter is, in our opinion, serious.
We can find no reason to alter the penalty imposed by the hearing officer and accordingly the appeal with respect to penalty is dismissed.
DATED THIS 10TH DAY OF MAY, 1989.
per ___________________________________ W.D. Drinkwalter, Q.C., Chairman