Kelowna Mountie in controversial 2012 rape interview was just doing his job, he says | iNFOnews | Thompson-Okanagan's News Source
Subscribe

Would you like to subscribe to our newsletter?

Current Conditions Sunny  10.1°C

Kelowna News

Kelowna Mountie in controversial 2012 rape interview was just doing his job, he says

Kelowna Law Courts.

KELOWNA - The Kelowna Mountie who conducted the widely criticized 2012 interview of an aboriginal teen attempting to enter a rape complaint has responded to the civil claim against him and denied all the allegations within.

Cpl. Kenneth Hall gained nationwide attention and the condemnation of politicians and women advocates alike earlier this year when the footage was released of a 2012 interview showing him asking a 17-year-old girl questions about her alleged rape.

“Were you at all turned on during this at all? Even a little bit?” the officer said in the video, viewed by iNFOnews. “You understand that when a guy tries to have sex with a female and the female is completely unwilling, it is very difficult.”

A civil suit followed in June, and Hall responded this week.

In his response, Cpl. Hall admits to being a Mountie and that he was carrying out his duties when he interviewed the teen at the centre of the controversy.

Everything else, however, he took issue with.

In the defendant’s version of facts, Cpl. Hall “denies each and every allegation of fact contained in the notice of civil claim, except where expressly admitted.”

He specifically denies that he was negligent either as alleged or at all, or that he engaged in any intentional tortious conduct.

He also denies that the teen, who is now 24, suffered “any injury, loss, damage or expense as alleged in the Notice of Civil Claim, or at all.”

“If the plaintiff was the subject of a tortious behaviour and if the plaintiff suffered resultant injury, loss, damage or expense as alleged or at all, none of which is admitted but is specifically denied, then the allegedly resultant injury, loss damage, or expense was not caused or contributed to by any act, omission, negligence, breach of duty, statutory or otherwise, on the part of Cpl. Hall,” reads the response to civil claim.

Hall said that he conducted the interview in a proper manner and asked questions to help him advance the RCMP investigation into the complaint filed by the plaintiff.

“The interview was conducted for proper investigatory purposes,” reads Hall’s response. “The plaintiff was never detained nor was the plaintiff ever facing any legal jeopardy during the course of the interview. During the interview, the plaintiff was told she was allowed to leave at any time.”

In addition to denying the claims made against him, Hall’s lawyer points out that the limitation period for action of this sort is two years from the date of discovery or two years from the date a minor attains the age of 19 years.

By either measure, the matter had surpassed that date by years.

In the civil suit filed on behalf of the young woman, it said that on or about March 5, 2012, the plaintiff was under the impression that at all times, her attendance at the RCMP detachment was in the capacity of a complainant reporting a serious sexual assault.

“However, Hall, acting in agreement with Siobahn Stynes and an unknown social worker who were both employees of the Ministry of Children and Family Development and the Director of Child Welfare, treated the plaintiff as a suspect,” read the suit.

The suit alleges Hall interrogated the plaintiff in the “most malicious degrading and threatening manner” keeping with an agreement he struck with social workers, who the suit describes as “negligent individuals.”

“Hall, acting in concert with the negligent individuals, carried out no meaningful investigation and did not make any significant inquiries to the complaint brought forward by the plaintiff,” states the suit. “Hall and the negligent individuals used the degrading malicious interrogation as a punishment for the plaintiff.”

The suit also alleges that the RCMP and Hall owed a duty of care to the plaintiff to ensure that if she was to be treated as a suspect in a criminal investigation that she was provided her constitutional rights. The suit claims that the RCMP failed to properly train Hall in the handling of sexual assault complaints. The suit claims that the teen's Charter Rights were breached when she was treated as a suspect, not a victim. She should have been informed of the reasons why she was detained and been provided legal counsel.

In the aftermath, the teen said she suffered damages, PTSD, diminished self-worth, diminished ability to concentrate, repeated and ongoing nightmares, depression, anxiety, difficulty in coping with stress, suicidal ideation, attempted suicide, feelings of guilt and more.

For that, she is seeking an undisclosed amount of damages.

RCMP have said a “fulsome review” of the incident would be conducted.

None of the allegations have been proven in court.


To contact a reporter for this story, email Kathy Michaels or call 250-718-0428 or email the editor. You can also submit photos, videos or news tips to the newsroom and be entered to win a monthly prize draw.

We welcome your comments and opinions on our stories but play nice. We won't censor or delete comments unless they contain off-topic statements or links, unnecessary vulgarity, false facts, spam or obviously fake profiles. If you have any concerns about what you see in comments, email the editor in the link above. 

News from © iNFOnews, 2019
iNFOnews

  • Popular kelowna News
View Site in: Desktop | Mobile