Military Police Complaints Commission

mpcc-cppm.gc.ca

Common menu bar

• Français
• Home
• Contact Us
• Help
• Search
• canada.gc.ca

Breadcrumb

1. Home >
2. The Commission >
3. Publications

Annual Report 2005

CASE SUMMARIES

In 2005, the Complaints Commission issued a total of 11 Interim and 12 Final Reports of its reviews and investigations, including a public interest investigation initiated in 2004 and concluded in 2005. The Commission made a total of 42 recommendations in its Final Reports, two-thirds of which were accepted by the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal.

The cases summarized here are intended to provide a sample of the type of complaints the Commission is called upon to review or investigate. These cases also demonstrate how the Commission's reviews often bring to light other issues of a systemic nature that, when addressed, may help prevent a recurrence of a particular problem in the future.

CASE No. 1
PUBLIC INTEREST INVESTIGATION

Incident and Complaint

In April 2004, a group of young people was waiting for a bus at a public transit stop outside a Department of National Defence building. A member of the military police (MP) was monitoring video surveillance of the area around the building and saw what he suspected to be an exchange of narcotics between two of the youths. As this appeared to have taken place on National Defence property, other MPs were called in to detain and search all of the youths.

Following this incident, parents of two of the young people wrote separate letters to the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, questioning the grounds for the detention and search, and whether military police had jurisdiction in the matter, as the youths may or may not have been on National Defence property.

The response by the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal

An investigation into the complaints by the Deputy Provost Marshal- Professional Standards (DPM-PS) concluded that the MPs were acting within their jurisdiction; that the detention and search was legitimate and proper; and that none of the youths' rights had been violated.

This investigation did note that, because of poor communication among the MPs involved, two of the youths - one of those whose parents complained - were wrongly subjected to a more thorough and intrusive search than the others. The DPM-PS directed the military police detachment to which the MPs were posted to ensure that the powers of search and various search techniques were included as part of routine annual training for its members.

The decision to call a Public Interest Investigation

During the course of the DPM's investigation, the Chair decided to hold an independent investigation into this incident based on a number of considerations, including:

• the possibility that the youths' constitutional and statutory protections against unreasonable detention and search may have been violated;
• whether existing military police policies and procedures related to the detention, questioning and search of young persons are clear and in keeping with the requirements of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Youth Criminal Justice Act; and
• the connection between military police conduct in their dealings with civilians and public confidence in military police.

The Findings of the Commission's Public Interest Investigation

While military police policies and procedures concerning detention and search were found to be consistent with the provisions of both the Charter and the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Commission determined that, in this instance, these policies and procedures were not followed.

MPs should have informed the youths of their right to counsel before searching them, particularly in the case of the two who were subjected to a so-called “body search”, which involves a thorough search of the person's clothing. The Commission found this to be excessive and, since neither was advised of their right to counsel before submitting to this more intrusive search, it was also decidedly improper. Although the youths' constitutional rights had been breached, the Commission found that the MPs' mistakes were made in good faith and that additional training was the appropriate remedy, consistent with the findings of the DPM-PS.

The Commission investigation also found that the DPM-PS named only the highest-ranking MP involved in the incident as a subject of the complaint at the beginning of the investigation. Given their part in the incident, the Commission found that the other MPs involved should have been advised at the outset that they were potential subjects as well.

The CFPM accepted the Commission's recommendation that the question of who should be a subject of a particular complaint should be considered carefully at the earliest stage of an investigation. This will help to enhance the fairness of the complaints process by giving all potential subjects of complaint a reasonable opportunity to respond to any findings that may be adverse to their interests.

Conclusion

The Commission Report noted the considerable impact of this detention and search on the two young people involved. Neither was in possession of narcotics, nor were they seen to be engaging in any sort of illegal activity, yet they were detained and subjected to an intrusive search that was excessive and improper. Both they and their families were upset, and justifiably so. The Commission supported the decision of the Deputy Provost Marshal- Professional Standards to issue formal letters of apology to both families.

CASE No. 2
REVIEW OF CONDUCT COMPLAINT

Incident and Complaint

A man and his wife, both civilians, were driving through Department of National Defence property after dark when a member of the military police (MP) pulled them over for speeding. During the traffic stop, concerned that he might be accused of harassment by the couple, the MP called in a second member of the military police to act as a witness to the event.

The man filed a complaint about the conduct of both MPs, alleging that the first MP did not properly identify himself either by name or as a member of the military police; deliberately hid his face; and used the combination of darkness and the blinding lights of his patrol vehicle to further shield his identity and that of the second MP.

The complainant also alleged the MP behaved in a menacing and confrontational manner.

Response by the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal

The DPM-PS investigation concluded that the first MP had acted in a confrontational manner, and the MP was directed to receive guidance regarding the proper tone and demeanour to be adopted in similar situations in the future.

The DPM-PS investigation did not find any evidence that either MP made a deliberate attempt to conceal their identity or their status as police.

Not satisfied with these findings, the complainant asked the Commission to review the complaint.

Review by the Complaints Commission

The Commission's review generally supported the findings of the DPM-PS investigation, and agreed that the remedial measures directed by the DPM-PS were appropriate in the circumstances.

The Commission also agreed with the DPM-PS finding that many of the allegations in this complaint appear to have resulted from the complainant's unfamiliarity with police procedures.

While the MP conceded he could have reacted more calmly when the couple left their vehicle on two occasions, military police procedure for traffic stops (as is true for virtually all police services) states that, for the safety of all concerned, “if the violator or passenger gets out of the car, request that they return to their vehicle.”

Similarly, actions perceived as attempts by the MP to conceal his identity were, in fact proper procedure. For their own safety during traffic stops, military police are instructed to stand to the rear of the driver's door of the stopped vehicle. Procedure also calls for the patrol vehicle's lights and emergency signals to remain in operation, in order to illuminate the scene and to warn other traffic. As for concealing the identity of the second MP who arrived on the scene, procedure dictates that if two MPs are present, “one must remain near the patrol vehicle in a protected position where observation can be maintained and coverage provided.”

While calling a second MP to the scene was interpreted as intimidation by the complainant, this too is procedure: when a patrol vehicle is not equipped with a video recording system, MPs are instructed to ask another MP to act as a witness to potentially controversial incidents.

In an additional finding, the Commission noted that, along with the report of Findings and Actions issued to the complainant and the MPs involved, the DPM-PS sent a second report to the two MPs. This report pointed out a number of other deficiencies in the MPs' conduct that came to light as a result of the DPM-PS investigation into the complaint, and directed that the two MPs undergo refresher training to correct these deficiencies.

The Commission found that, had this information also been given to the complainant, it would have provided additional assurance that the complaint had been investigated thoroughly and that all appropriate action was being taken in response.

The Canadian Forces Provost Marshal accepted the Commission's recommendation to this effect, and made a commitment that all relevant information, with the exception of purely administrative matters, will be included in all future reports to complainants.

Further, as a measure of prevention against this type of complaint in the future, the CFPM agreed with the Commission that this type of scenario be included in routine training for all military police.

CASE No. 3
REVIEW OF CONDUCT COMPLAINT

Incident and Complaint

During the course of an investigation related to alleged theft of computer equipment, members of the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (the CFNIS – a specialized arm of the military police) went to the office of a sergeant in the Canadian Forces, arrested her for obstruction of justice, and led her from her workplace in handcuffs.

Some months later, after learning she would not be charged, the Sergeant filed a complaint alleging ‘among other things’ that the CFNIS investigators had arrested her without justification, attempted to intimidate her and, by arresting her at her place of work, humiliated and embarrassed her.

Response by the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal

An investigation by the Deputy Provost Marshal-Professional Standards (DPM-PS) found that the conduct of the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS) investigators fell well short of the standard expected of senior members of the military police:

• the Sergeant was arrested without reasonable and probable grounds;
• military police tried to intimidate her into continuing an interview even after she had exercised her right to remain silent; and,
• CFNIS investigators caused needless embarrassment to the Sergeant by arresting her in public, adding to her humiliation with the unwarranted use of handcuffs.

The two MPs named in the complaint were found in violation of both military police policies and the Military Police Professional Code of Conduct. The DPM-PS directed both MPs receive formal counselling and undergo remedial training.

Complainant's Request for Review

In the request for a review of her complaint, the Sergeant expressed concern that the “counseling and remedial training” directed for the CFNIS investigators seemed “trivial” in comparison to what she had been through, which included being suspended with pay from her job for several weeks.

Review by the Complaints Commission

The Commission's review of this complaint pointed to the difficulties that can arise when complainants are not given a full report of the way their complaint has been handled.

In this case, the two CFNIS investigators (and their superior officers in the chain of command) received a letter detailing a rigourous regime of counselling and remedial training directed by the DPM-PS. The letter to the investigators also said that, had they not been found to be acting in good faith when they arrested the Sergeant, they may well have been suspended. In contrast, the letter to the Sergeant noted only the aforementioned counselling and training, without offering any explanation of what that entailed.

This speaks to both the fairness and the transparency of the process. While the Commission's power to review the handling of conduct complaints is essential to ensuring fairness to all parties, reviews do prolong the period of uncertainty for both complainants and subjects of complaint. In this case, had the Sergeant known the details of the sanctions faced by the two investigators, she might not have felt the need to request a review.

The Commission has noted this problem in previous cases, and is pleased to report that since this case was concluded, the DPM-PS has undertaken to include identical information in the final letters to both the complainant and the subject of the complaint.

Primary navigation (left column)

Date Modified:

2006-04-03