Conduct Case MPCC‑2017‑029 Summary
The Complainant, a Canadian Forces (CF) member, faced assault allegation and was arrested by the members of the military police (MP) at a Canadian Forces base in February 2016. The MP report was mistakenly sent to the Complainant’s brother’s unit instead of the Complainant’s. The MP re-opened the case and alleged that the Complainant committed identity fraud by using his brother’s identification to mislead the MP at the time of his arrest. The drunkenness and identity fraud charges were later withdrawn by the military prosecutor. In his conduct complaint, the Complainant claims that the charges of drunkenness and identity fraud were unfounded and caused him significant prejudice.
The Military Police Complaints Commission (MPCC) substantiated the Complainant’s claims about the identity fraud charge. The MPCC found there was no evidence to support the recommended charge of identity fraud against the Complainant. With respect to the Complainant’s claims about the drunkenness charge, the MPCC found that it was reasonable, in the circumstances, for the MP members to conclude, on a balance of probabilities, that the Complainant was intoxicated on the night of his arrest.
The MPCC also concluded that the MP members did not fail to advise the Complainant of the charges against him. The subject MP members in this case had no authority to lay charges for offences under the National Defence Act (NDA) at the time. Therefore, they had no obligation to inform the Complainant of charges against him. The evidence indicates that the arresting subject MP informed the Complainant at the time of the arrest of the general reasons for his arrest. The MP then submitted their findings to the Complainant’s unit Commanding Officer (CO) for action, including charges, as deemed appropriate.
The MPCC found that MP members partially failed to provide the MP report to the Complainant’s unit in a timely manner. The Complainant stated that his unit only received the MP report in November 2016, nine months after his arrest. The MPCC notes that two reports were generated and distributed, a Military Police Investigation Report (MPIR) and the complete MP report. Based on the evidence, full disclosure of the file was not provided to the Office of the Judge Advocate General in a timely manner, considering the initial report (MPIR), did not contain sufficient information to facilitate the Complainant’s unit CO in laying charges under the NDA.
The MPCC made six recommendations to the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal (CFPM) to address the issues identified in its investigation:
- to remind MP detachments of the importance of ensuring that Mobile Video Recording Systems (MVRS) are in proper working order, and to remind shift supervisors to annotate the MVRS condition in the daily inspection report as set out in the relevant Canadian Forces Military Police Order (CF MP Order) (recommendation #2);
- for the subject MP members involved in the Complainant’s arrest to review the CF MP Order pertaining to the operation of the MVRS (recommendation #1), as well as the CF MP Orders pertaining to note-taking and note-taking procedures to ensure compliance with current procedures and best practices (recommendation #3);
- to provide enhanced step-by-step training on subject identification and verification, as well as clearer guidance on how to identify subjects, particularly those who are intoxicated (recommendation #4);
- to remind the subject MP members involved in the Complainant’s arrest of the existing guidance in CF MP Orders and policies about seeking legal advice and encourage all MP members to consult with the regional military prosecutors prior to laying charges, particularly in cases involving unusual facts or offences (recommendation #5); and
- to remind all MP members of their obligations regarding official languages when interacting with other CF members and members of the public in the course of their work. All MP personnel, with particular emphasis on MP members on patrol duties, should be reminded that a person being questioned, detained, or arrested by the MP has the right to provide information in the official language of their choice and that MP members must make every effort to ensure this right is respected, and that if MP members are unable to communicate in the official language of the person questioned, detained or arrested, arrangements must be made, within a reasonable time, to ensure compliance with the choice made by that person (recommendation #6).
The CFPM accepted the recommendation that the subject MP members review the CF MP Orders pertaining to the operation of the MVRS, note-taking and note-taking procedures, including the recommendation that they be reminded of existing guidance in CF MP Orders and policies about seeking legal advice and that all MP members be encouraged to consult with regional military prosecutors prior to laying charges. The CFPM partially accepted the recommendation that MP detachments be reminded of the importance of ensuring that MVRS are in proper working order, and that shift supervisors annotate the MVRS condition in the daily inspection report, including the recommendation regarding official languages. The CFPM did not accept the recommendation to provide MP members with enhanced step-by-step training on subject identification and verification, as well as clearer guidance on how to identify subjects, particularly those who are intoxicated.
- Date modified: