ONTARIO CIVILIAN POLICE COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF The POLICE SERVICES ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, as amended
BETWEEN:
CONSTABLE COLIN A. HINDS Appellant
-and-
ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE FORCE Respondent
DECISION
Panel: W.D. Drinkwalter, Q.C., Chairman Frank D'Andrea, Member
Hearing Date: March 12, 1990
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 D'Andrea, Member
Appearances:
W. Michael Temple for the Appellant Constable Colin A. Hinds, Appellant John Zarudny for the Respondent
Hearing Date: March 12, 1990
Constable Hinds appeals from the penalty imposed bythe Force Adjudicator following his conviction for discreditable conduct in that he had been found guilty of anoffence under the Criminal Code.
The offence was a sexual assault upon a femalewhich occurred during the late night hours during a privateparty. The criminal charge was prosecuted as a summaryconviction offence; Constable Hinds was found guilty, given aconditional discharge and placed on probation for six months.
On the disciplinary charge Constable Hinds pleadedguilty and was ordered to be dismissed.
The sexual assault was the touching of the privateparts of a female person without her consent. The application of force was minimal and Constable Hinds desistedwhen the woman's refusal to participate became clear to him.
Apart from the bald fact of the conviction for thisvery serious offence, the assessing of penalty must take intoaccount another fact. Constable Hinds pleaded not guilty tothe criminal charge and testified. His evidence was not accepted. In his Reasons for Decision, amongst other things,the Trial Judge said " ... I must reject the accused person'stestimony, it being evidence that not only do I not believe,but I found it to be unreasonable."
Constable Hinds was appointed in November l987; the offence occurred on March 6, l988. He was found guilty of the criminal offence in June of l989 and dismissed in December of l989.
We have carefully reviewed the reasons for penalty given by the Trials Officer and can find no reason to interfere with his assessment. The appellant invites us to give significant weight to the fact that Constable Hinds pleaded guilty before the disciplinary tribunal. However, had he not done so, it would have been necessary for the prosecuting officer only to file a certificate from the criminal court and identify Constable Hinds as the person named in that certificate. It is more significant that Constable Hinds pleaded not guilty before the criminal court and gave evidence which was in fact disbelieved.
It is an essential part of the duty of a police officer to testify in courts. When a police officer's credibility is destroyed, as Constable Hind's credibility has been, he can no longer function as a police officer.
For the above reasons the appeal is dismissed.
DATED THIS 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 1990.
per ______________________________________
W.D. Drinkwalter, Q.C., Chairman