Constable Maxwell Lloyd v. London Police Service, 1999 CanLII 31609

ONTARIO CIVILIAN POLICE COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF The POLICE SERVICES ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, as amended

BETWEEN:

CONSTABLE MAXWELL LLOYD Appellant

-and-

LONDON POLICE SERVICE Respondent

DECISION

Panel: Karlene Hussey, Member Barbara Morland Wellard, Member

Hearing Date: October 1, 1998 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

Presiding Members: Karlene Hussey, Member Barbara Morland Wellard, Member

Appearances: J.A. Tory Colvin, Counsel for the Appellant Bruce Kenneth Brown, Counsel for the Respondent

Hearing Date: October 1, 1998

1Constable Maxwell Lloyd appeals findings of discreditable conduct and deceit contrary to section 1(a)(i) and 1(d)(ii) of the Code of Conduct (the “Code”) contained in Regulation 927 of R.R.O. 1990 as amended. The decision was rendered by Superintendent D. Vickery (the “Hearing Officer”) on January 23, 1998.

2Constable Lloyd also appeals the penalties imposed on February 5, 1998 of reduction in rank to Fourth Class “B” for 6 months on a conviction of neglect of duty contrary to

3section 1(c)(viii) of the Code following a guilty plea, reduction in rank to Fourth Class “A” for a period of 6 months on the finding of discreditable conduct and dismissal unless he resigned within 7 days on the finding of deceit.

Background:

4The facts in this case are contentious and much in dispute.

5On November 6, 1996, Constable Lloyd and his partner Constable Tansey attended at the Rendezvous Tavern as part of their duty during a routine directed patrol. While there, the two officers engaged in a conversation with two women, one of whom was Mrs. D, an exotic dancer. The conversation was brief.

6Mrs. D stated this was her first contact with Constable Lloyd. Mrs. D says that in her conversation with the officers she mentioned her car was parked outside and she said, “don’t give me a ticket”. Beyond that not much more was said. She stated that the conversation was at all times proper and professional.

7It is alleged that Constable Lloyd made two other visits to the tavern. Mrs. D says that the second visit took place two or three days later (November 8th or 9th) at about eight or nine o’clock at night. Constable Lloyd was in uniform. She recalls that the discussion revolved around the fact that she had not changed her vehicle registration to reflect her new address.

8There are also allegations that Constable Lloyd attended at the residence of Mrs. D and her husband on at least three separate occasions while in uniform. Each of these visits occurred at around three o’clock in the morning after the end of Mrs. D’s shift.

9It is alleged that Constable Lloyd’s first visit to the residence took place between 3:00 and 3:30 a.m. on November 8 or 9, 1996. This was the same day that Mrs. D had her second contact with Constable Lloyd at the Rendezvous Tavern. Both Mr. and Mrs. D state that the visit was very brief and that Constable Lloyd said he was there to check if Mrs. D had changed the address on her vehicle registration.

10Mrs. D stated that Constable Lloyd made a brief second visit to her residence approximately two days to one week later. She said it seemed like a couple of days but it could have been a week. Mr. D says that it was approximately two or three weeks after the first visit. Both Mr. and Mrs. D stated that this visit took place between 3:00 and 3:30 a.m. shortly after she came home from work. The reason given for the visit by Constable Lloyd was that he was checking on a noise disturbance.

11The final alleged visit to the tavern was approximately one week later. On that occasion Mrs. D stated that Constable Lloyd was dressed in civilian clothing. She recalled that the conversation with Constable Lloyd was brief and courteous.

12Both Mr. and Mrs. D say that Constable Lloyd made a third visit to their residence at approximately 3:00 to 3:30 a.m. and his reason was that jewelry was missing. Mrs. D stated that it was a week or two after her last contact with Constable Lloyd. Mr. D said that it was between two and three weeks after the previous visit to their home.

13Both Mr. and Mrs. D state that it was approximately two months before they saw Constable Lloyd again.

14On February 16, 1997 Constable Lloyd and Constable Tobin were on duty. They received an emergency Code 1 call to Mr. and Mrs. D’s apartment with information that a stabbing had occurred. When they arrived they saw Mrs. D in the parking lot. She was very distraught. She informed the officers that her husband had assaulted her, that he was drunk and had a knife. Her face was swollen and bleeding. The officers entered the apartment and arrested Mr. D.

15On September 6, 1997, Constable Lloyd was driving a marked cruiser and he stopped a vehicle which was being driven by Mr. D. He noticed that Mrs. D was not wearing her seatbelt and issued a Certificate of Offence against her for failure to wear a seatbelt.

16Following this incident, both Mr. and Mrs. D made a complaint to the London Police Service about Constable Lloyd’s conduct.

The Allegations:

17Constable Lloyd was charged with three counts of misconduct on October 8, 1997.

18The first charge alleged neglect of duty for failing to make necessary entries in an official document or book between November 5, 1996 and September 7, 1997. The facts of this allegation are not in dispute. Constable Lloyd admitted attending at the residence of Mrs. D at her request to answer questions about an upcoming trial at which she was to be a witness. Her husband had been charged with assaulting her and Constable Lloyd was one of the officers called to the scene of the domestic dispute. Constable Lloyd failed to make an entry in his duty book or to inform radio dispatch of this visit.

19The second charge alleged discreditable conduct in that Constable Lloyd between November 5, 1996 and September 7, 1997 acted in a disorderly manner or in a manner prejudicial to discipline or likely to bring discredit upon the reputation of the police force. The specific allegation was that he visited the home of Mr. and Mrs. D on three occasions at approximately 3:00 a.m. under the pretext of carrying out certain police inquiries.

20The allegation also referred to the seatbelt ticket issued on September 6, 1997. While Mrs. D did not dispute the legitimacy of the charge, she expressed concern about the overall pattern of behavior displayed by Constable Lloyd towards herself and her husband.

21Charge number three alleged deceit in that Constable Lloyd willfully or negligently made false, misleading or inaccurate statements pertaining to his official duties. In particular, on September 17, 1997, Constable Lloyd was asked if he had done a Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) check on Mrs. D or her motor vehicle at any time. He indicated that he had not. He stated that he had done a CPIC check on her husband on September 6, 1997 (when he issued the Certificate of Offence to Mrs. D) and may also have done one on her husband when he investigated an assault occurrence at her home on February 16, 1997.

22An off-line check showed that Constable Lloyd had done a CPIC check on Mrs. D on November 7, 1996. Constable Lloyd indicated that another officer, Constable Tansey may have made the check. When it was pointed out to him that Constable Tansey did not work on November 7, 1996, Constable Lloyd could offer no explanation for the CPIC check.

The Hearing:

23The disciplinary hearing took place January 15, 16 and 23, 1998 and February 5, 1998.

24Constable Lloyd pled guilty to the first allegation of neglect of duty for failing to make an entry in his notebook or inform radio dispatch of his visit to Mrs. D to discuss her husband’s upcoming trial. However, he pled not guilty to the allegations of discreditable conduct and deceit. The witnesses at the disciplinary hearing were Mr. D, Mrs. D, Mrs. Lloyd and Constable Lloyd.

25There were clear conflicts between Constable Lloyd’s evidence and the testimony given by Mr. and Mrs. D. Constable Lloyd acknowledged that he went to the Rendezvous Tavern on directed patrol on November 6, 1996 and that he had a brief conversation with Mrs. D. However, he states that he next spoke to her two or three weeks later while he was on patrol duty and saw her vehicle stopped at a 7-Eleven. He asked her about her driver’s license and her address.

26Constable Lloyd denies that he ever visited Mr. and Mrs. D’s residence except for two occasions. He testified that the first time he went to their home was the call to the domestic dispute. Constable Lloyd testified that on that visit he received instructions from the dispatchers on how to approach the apartment where Mr. and Mrs. D lived because there were two or three different buildings in the complex. He ended up in the wrong area and had to run southbound toward the building.

27He testified that the second visit was in response to a request from Mrs. D to discuss the court process regarding the assault charge against her husband. He testified that this visit lasted approximately 5 to 10 minutes. Constable Lloyd stated that his relationship with Mr. and Mrs. D was professional at all times.

28Constable Lloyd offered his work schedule for the months of November and December 1996 and January and February 1997 to demonstrate the lack of opportunity for the disputed visits to the residence.

29Mrs. D testified that when Constable Lloyd first attended at the tavern she tried to seduce him. She also inferred that she was interested in Constable Lloyd but at no time was Constable Lloyd anything but professional with her. She stated that once she found out Constable Lloyd was married, she decided not to pursue him. She denied ever having an affair with him.

30She testified that Constable Lloyd had never harmed her in anyway, never stressed her, never stalked or verbally abused her, tried to grab her, date her or endanger her person. She assumed that he visited her residence out of concern.

31She testified that she was angry about the ticket and her husband pressured her to complain. She stated that this was about a ticket not a complaint about Constable Lloyd going to her house. She told the officer who took her statement that she did not want to complain and that while her husband had a problem with Constable Lloyd she did not. She testified that her husband wanted to get back at Constable Lloyd because he thought she was having an affair with him.

32Mr. D testified to his impression that Constable Lloyd was “hitting” on his wife and that he felt harassed by him. He gave evidence regarding the alleged visits by Constable Lloyd to their residence and indicated that he felt the reason for these visits was because Constable Lloyd was having an affair with his wife.

33At the conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding, the Hearing Officer found Constable Lloyd guilty of discreditable conduct and deceit.

34For the neglect of duty charge to which Constable Lloyd had plead guilty, the prosecution sought a penalty of 16 hours forfeiture of pay. The Hearing Officer imposed a penalty of demotion to the rank from Third Class Constable to Fourth Class “B”.

35For the discreditable conduct conviction, the prosecution sought a penalty of demotion in rank to from Third Class Constable to Fourth Class “B” for a period of six months. The Hearing Officer imposed a penalty of demotion to Fourth Class “A” for six months.

36Finally, for the deceit conviction, the Hearing Officer imposed a penalty of dismissal unless Constable Lloyd resigned within seven days.

The Appellant’s Arguments:

37The Appellant argues that the Hearing Officer failed to make his findings on clear and convincing proof based on cogent evidence. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the evidence advanced by Mr. and Mrs. D does not meet the threshold of clear and convincing evidence. In support of this argument Mr. Colvin cited Glassman and Council of the College of Physician and Surgeons (1966), 1966 CanLII 236 (ON CA), 2 O.R. 81 (Ont. C.A.)

38The Appellant further argued that the Hearing Officer failed to consider the credibility failings of the complainants as demonstrated in collateral issues. With respect to Mr. and Mrs. D, Counsel for the Appellant argued that their credibility is suspect in light of their past contact with the judicial system. He cited the following cases to support this argument: R. v. Robson (Unreported, Ont. Div. Crt., March 22, 1993), R. v. Ligocki (1991), 1 O.R. (3) 181 (Ont. C.A.), and R. v. Gun Ying (1930), 1930 CanLII 396 (ON SCAD), 53 C.C.C. 378 (Ont. C.A.).

39Counsel for the Appellant referred also to Richard Eggleston’s article on “Credibility and Probability” contained in Evidence, Proof and Probability as to the factors to be considered when deciding when a witness is telling the truth.

40He submitted that there are inherent inconsistencies in their evidence and that they should not be believed. He stated we must look at the reliability of their evidence in considering whether it meets the test of clear and convincing. He submitted that the Hearing Officer did not do this and that he was too quick to attack the credibility of Constable Lloyd who had been placed in the very difficult position of having “to prove a negative”.

41Counsel also submitted that the Hearing Officer expressed acceptance of clear and convincing evidence but failed to apply that test to the facts before him. In particular, the Hearing Officer failed to reconcile his findings with Constable Lloyd’s work schedule. In effect the Hearing Officer reversed the onus and placed it on Constable Lloyd. He cites Coates v. Registrar of Motor Vehicle Dealers (1989), 1988 CanLII 4555 (ON HCJ), 65 O.R. (2nd) 526 (Ont. Div. Crt.), I.F.K. v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (Unreported, B.C. C.A., March 13,1998), and Re Fenton and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (1974), 1974 CanLII 457 (ON HCJDC), 6 O.R. (2d) 193 (Ont. Div. Crt.).

42Counsel for the Appellant took issue with the fact that the statement of particulars fell short of identifying with sufficient specificity an offence, time or date, thereby depriving the Appellant of the opportunity to make full answer and defence.

43Counsel for the Appellant also argued that the penalties imposed were harsh and excessive.

Respondents Arguments:

44Mr. Brown, on behalf of the Respondent, argued that the Hearing Officer is in the best position to assess the credibility of a witness. He submitted that he can view their demeanor while testifying. He stated that Mr. and Mrs. D corroborated each other on the essential facts. Their evidence was at odds only on collateral matters such as the assault charge against Mr. D. He also submitted that Mrs. D, although no longer living with her husband, testified that he was not the type who would make something up just to get back at Constable Lloyd.

45Counsel also argued that the Hearing Officer reviewed Constable Lloyd’s testimony and found too many inconsistencies and thus favored the evidence of Mr. and Mrs. D. He stated that their evidence was more probable than that of Constable Lloyd’s. He further argued that if we accept Mr. and Mrs. D’s version of events then the visits by Constable Lloyd to their residence were attempts by him to use his office for his own personal gain thus bringing the police service into disrepute.

46Mr. Brown submitted that the Hearing Officer carefully weighed the evidence he heard turning his mind to and applying the proper standards of proof, which requires clear and convincing evidence to support a conviction.

Decision:

47The heart of the Appellant’s position is that the Hearing Officer erred in assigning the weight he did to the evidence of Mr. and Mrs. D. In his decision, Superintendent Vickery stated that he accepted the evidence of Mr. and Mrs. D over that of Constable Lloyd.

48Matters of credibility and findings of fact are clearly within the Hearing Officer’s jurisdiction. Only in exceptional cases where the reasoning is self-evidently wrong, contains clear error or cannot reasonably be accepted, will the Commission interfere with conclusions made by the Hearing Officer on such matters.

49In this case was there sufficient evidence to conclude that the Appellant had committed the offences with which he is charged? The applicable burden of proof is that of clear and convincing evidence. This evidence must be weighty, cogent and reliable.

50Constable Lloyd presented his work schedule which indicated the opportunities or lack thereof for him to have been at the residence of Mr. and Mrs. D at 3.00 a.m. while he was on duty and fully dressed in his uniform. Both Mr. and Mrs. D were unsure of the exact dates of these events but gave a time-frame in which these events may have taken place. By Mrs. D’s account these visits to her home took place between November 6, 1996 and December 7, 1996. Her evidence was:

(1) November 6, 1996 she saw him at the tavern with another officer;

(2) Two or three days later ( November 8 or 9) the visited the tavern in uniform;

(3) A couple of days or maybe a week later ( November 10-16) he visited her home in uniform;

(4) One week later (November 17 - 23) he appeared at the tavern in civilian clothing;

(5) One to two weeks later (November 30 – December 7) he visited her home in uniform; and

(6) Approximately 2 months later was the domestic incident.

51Her husband’s evidence was:

(1) First visit to their home was October or November 1996;

(2) Second visit to their home was two to three weeks after the first;

(3) Third visit was two or three weeks after the second; and

(4) Approximately two months after the third visit Constable Lloyd attended at his home for the domestic incident.

52The domestic incident was on February 16, 1997.

[53] Officer Lloyd’s work schedule indicates the following: November 8 -13 off duty. November 14 – 17 on duty 3:45 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. November 18 -19 off duty November 20 – 22 on duty 7:45 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. November 23 – 24 off duty. November 25 – 27 on duty 1:45 p.m. to 12:00 midnight November 28 – 29 off duty. November 30 to December 3 on duty 6:45 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. December 4 -18 holidays.

54There are obvious problems reconciling some of the incidents at the heart of this charge (discreditable conduct) with some of the dates in Mrs. D’s testimony, bearing in mind that her testimony is the only one which comes close to being specific about the dates of visits. One example is November 8 or 9 when Constable Lloyd was allegedly at the tavern in uniform around supper time and later at around 3:00 a.m. made his first visit to her home. On those dates he was clearly not on duty.

55We note, however, that Mrs. D repeatedly testified that she was unsure of the dates. In her testimony, Mrs. D struggled with whether or not it was the day after the first visit or after that. She eventually said that it was definitely not the day after but rather the second or third day after. Similarly, we observe that on the occasion of the third visit to the residence the time frame of Mrs. D’s testimony would place Constable Lloyd either on a day shift from 7 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. or on holidays.

56The inferences to be drawn to make the evidence fit the conclusion are that Mrs. D was completely mistaken about the time; or that Constable Lloyd appeared at the tavern in uniform on his day off; or that Constable Lloyd got up somewhere around 3:00 a.m. when he was off duty or on holiday, put on his uniform and went to Mr. and Mrs. D’s residence.

57Mrs. Lloyd, who was also found to be a credible witness by the Hearing Officer, testified that at no time did she ever observe her husband work on his day off or leave their home in the middle of the night. She testified that she is a light sleeper and that she was never away during that period of time without her husband.

58Given the undisputed work schedule, the lack of certainty of both Mr. and Mrs. D about dates and the testimony of Mrs. Lloyd, we find it difficult to see how the Hearing Officer could reasonably conclude that there was clear and convincing evidence to support a finding of discreditable conduct. As the court stated at paragraph 42 in I.F.K. v. College of Physicians and Surgeons: “An analysis to justify the conclusion is not enough. It is not the conclusion that must be clear and cogent but rather the evidence that leads to the conclusion.”

59Even assuming that the complainants’ version of events is correct we are not convinced that the behavior as set out in the charge would likely bring discredit to the police service.

60We do not see a pattern of harassment as alleged by Mr. D. There is no clear and convincing evidence that Constable Lloyd was using his authority as a police officer to strike up or maintain a relationship with Mrs. D. In fact, we find that there is no evidence of any sort of a relationship between the two. This was specifically denied by both Constable Lloyd and Mrs. D.

61The Rendezvous Tavern was in Constable Lloyd’s patrol area. It was part of his duty to be there from time to time. The alleged visits by Constable Lloyd (if they in fact took place) to Mr. and Mrs. D’s residence were brief. Although most people might have had their sleep disturbed, Mr. and Mrs. D both indicated that they were awake and having coffee at the kitchen table at 3 a.m.

62Further, the alleged victim of the purported harassment, Mrs. D, clearly stated that she was never harmed, stalked, abused, touched or solicited by Constable Lloyd. She stated that it was her belief that Constable Lloyd’s visits arose out of his concern for her. We believe that the test of whether particular conduct brings discredit upon the reputation of the police service must be how a member of the public would perceive the situation. It has not been demonstrated that Constable Lloyd’s behavior fell so short of society’s standard as to be considered discreditable.

63We believe most people would have thought that he was simply doing his job when patrolling bars in his patrol zone, responding to a domestic assault call, counseling a witness or issuing a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt. We do not believe anyone would have thought that Constable Lloyd would have brought discredit to the London Police Service by issuing this ticket, even in light of prior events.

64In fact, Mrs. D expressed regret that Constable Lloyd was put through this process for what was essentially a ticket she deserved. Other than this ticket, Mrs. D had no complaint about Constable Lloyd’s conduct. The only concern appears to have arisen from Mrs. D’s estranged husband who was facing domestic assault charges and had doubts about his wife’s fidelity.

65For the above reasons we would overturn the conviction of discreditable conduct.

66With respect to the allegations of deceit, it is clear that Constable Lloyd did do a CPIC check on Mrs. D on November 7, 1996. Constable Lloyd was asked about this check in September of 1997, almost one year after the event. In response, he indicated that he had not. He stated that he may have done a CPIC check on Mr. D on February 16, 1997 when he investigated the domestic assault charge and on September 6, 1997 when he issued the seatbelt ticket. Constable Lloyd could offer no explanation for the check of November 7, 1996. (The Commission considers the misuse of CPIC a serious offence, however, the allegations in this appeal are that of deceit, not the misuse of CPIC.)

67In Perry and York Regional Police Service (1972), 1 O.P.R. 89 (O.P.C.) at term “deceit” was defined as follows:

68A fraudulent and cheating misrepresentation, artifice, or device, used by one or more person to deceive and trick another, who is ignorant of the true facts, to the prejudice and damage of the party imposed upon.

69This definition remains sound.

70In order to establish a charge of deceit it is necessary to show that an officer “wilfully or negligently makes a false, misleading or inaccurate statement pertaining to official duties”. As was noted in McCoy and Fort Francis Police Services (1969), 1 O.P.R. 16 (O.P.C.) that to properly convict an officer under this provision it is necessary to show “an intention to deceive”. Further, an inaccurate statement by itself, in the absence of proof of willfulness or intent will not support a conviction. As we said in Burgess and St. Thomas Police Service (1989), 2 O.P.R. 822 (O.P.C.) at page 828:

The above-noted statements which constitute the heart of the charge of deceit can reasonably be said to be inaccurate and incomplete. It is a long mile, however, between the point at which one can find a statement inaccurate and the point at which one can find that a statement was made with intent to mislead or deceive.

71A similar view was expressed in Graham and OPP (1985), 2 O.P.R. 663 (O.P.C.).

72Having reviewed the record in this case we are not satisfied that the requisite intent has been established. Constable Lloyd is a patrol officer who in the course of his duties must conduct hundreds of CPIC checks. The fact that he may have made an inaccurate statement about one such check made almost a year after the event is not surprising. Certainly, in and of itself it does not establish willfulness.

73As a result, the conviction on the count of deceit cannot stand.

Penalty

74In Williams and OPP (1995), 2 O.P.R. 1047 (O.C.C.P.S.) the Commission identified three key elements to be taken into account when imposing penalty. These included the nature and seriousness of the misconduct, the ability to reform or rehabilitate the officer, and the damage to the reputation of the police force that would occur if the officer remained on the force.

[75] There are also other factors which can be relevant, either mitigating or aggravating the penalty depending on the particular misconduct in question. They include the officer’s:

• employment history and experience,
• recognition of the seriousness of the transgression, and
• handicap or other relevant personal circumstances.

76Finally, other considerations could include provocation, the need for deterrence and concerns arising from management’s approach to the misconduct in question.

77When imposing penalty it is also important to take into account prior disciplinary cases dealing with similar types of misconduct. The reason for this is simple. As the Commission stated in Schofield and Metropolitan Toronto Police (1984), 2 O.P.R. 613 (O.P.C.) at page 615: “Consistency in the disciplinary process is often the earmark of fairness. The penalty must be consistent with the facts, and consistent with similar cases that have been dealt with on earlier occasions.”

78Constable Lloyd is a junior officer. He was appointed to the London Police Service on August 8, 1994. Constable Lloyd’s Performance Appraisal Report for 1995 describes him as meeting all standards. He is described as “well liked by his peers and supervisors” and is seen as “displaying good potential for future development”.

79Evidence was led at the hearing as to Constable Lloyd’s previous disciplinary convictions in July of 1996 (which were as a result of guilty pleas). There was one conviction for discreditable conduct and one for deceit (making a false statement). On these counts, he was demoted in rank first to Fourth Class “B” and then to Fourth Class “A”. This was a situation in which Constable Lloyd had been over-zealous in attempting to lay charges against an individual or individuals who were known to the London Police Service.

80His Performance Appraisal Report for that year describes him as meeting the required standard for work performance, deportment and interpersonal relations. Improvement is called for in job knowledge and skills and responsibility. Despite the disciplinary conviction the Report states that he “has maintained a good attitude” and that “experience will greatly assist Constable Lloyd with his decision making abilities”.

81Constable Lloyd’s Performance Appraisal Report for 1997 indicates that his work performance and interpersonal skills meet standard. Improvement is called for in job knowledge and skills, deportment and responsibility. The reviewer concluded the Report by stating: “P.C. Lloyd must learn to adhere to proper police procedure. He has a lot of work to do in order to rebuild his reputation.”

82Constable Lloyd put in evidence a number of unsolicited letters of commendations with respect to his official duties and his extra curricular service to the community. Like the Hearing Officer, we have observed that there was a common thread in these letters which demonstrates professionalism, compassion, and very good communication skills.

83There is no indication of handicap or provocation in this case or concern with management’s approach. Further, to his credit Constable Lloyd accepted responsibility by pleading guilty to the allegation of neglect of duty for not completing an entry in his notebook or informing dispatch of his visit to Mrs. D. to discuss the upcoming trial.

84In previous decisions the Commission has noted the importance of maintaining an accurate notebook. In Cristiano and Metropolitan Police Service ( February 4, 1997) we stated at page 2:

The purpose of an officer’s notebook is to provide a clear creditable record of the officer’s activities and observations of various matters which may be of vital use later to refresh his or her memory. Misstatements such as in this case only service to undermine the usefulness and credibility of an officer’s notebook for all officers.

85This case concerned an officer who left his patrol zone without permission to attend a chiropractor’s appointment. This fact was not reflected in his notebook.

86The penalty imposed in Cristiano was forfeiture of two days off. On appeal, this penalty was upheld even though it was described at page 4 as being at the “low range of the spectrum available to the Hearing Officer”.

87In the case at hand, the penalty recommended by the prosecution at the hearing was loss of 16 hours of pay. This is equivalent to the disposition in Cristiano. Despite this proposal and the submissions of Constable Lloyd the Hearing Officer imposed a penalty of reduction in rank to Fourth Class “A” for a period of six months.

88We agree that in the circumstances this penalty is harsh and excessive and out of proportion given the officer’s history and previous penalties imposed for similar offences. Constable Lloyd is a junior constable who has made mistakes. However, it would appear that he has the potential to be a good officer if he can focus on following proper procedures. Accordingly, we reduce the penalty to that which was originally suggested by the prosecutor - loss of 16 hours pay.

89We would strongly urge Constable Lloyd to make a conscious effort to ensure proper police procedure are met and take care that his activities are properly noted. It is in his best interest that he does so.