(ADAM PROSKIW - REPORTER / iNFOnews.ca)

WEST KELOWNA – A West Kelowna RCMP officer was sanctioned in 2014 for accessing police records and improperly sharing that information with others.

That information was never disclosed to the public until it became a credibility issue in an upcoming court case, according to a recent provincial court decision.

The unnamed officer is due to testify in a dangerous driving case. The Constable is expected to be the only witness for the prosecution in the case and his service record was offered by the Crown to a defence lawyer through standard disclosure.

Kelowna RCMP and British Columbia RCMP headquarters declined to provide more details about the case, saying the matter is covered under the federal Privacy Act. Questions were referred to RCMP headquarters in Ottawa but calls and emails to headquarters seeking explanation of the situation specifically — or about the code of conduct generally — have been ignored for three days.

All information comes from a recent decision by Provincial Court Judge Ellen Burdett, who ordered the Crown to produce and disclose police disciplinary records for the officer, who is only referred to as “Const. G.” She quoted Crown disclosure this way:

“Over a period of several months in 2013 Const. G. accessed police information for a non-police purpose and passed that information to a third party” and “Const. G. received informal discipline under the RCMP Act in April, 2014, as a result of inappropriately accessing RCMP electronic information systems and detachment file for non-duty related purpose and disclosing information to non-RCMP personnel from an RCMP investigation between January and November 2013.”

The RCMP Act underwent a major revision in 2014 and specifically describes a code of conduct for officers including how members may use information collected by police and in investigations. It also overhauled how the RCMP handles internal conduct and prefers to use "remedial, corrective and educative solutions to conduct issues rather than punishment." It describes an “informal discipline hearing” for numerous offences of the code of conduct, including many that may include deceit or dishonesty. Only the most egregious of Code of Conduct investigations that contemplate dismissal or other severe sanctions go to a board hearing which makes them available to the public.

“Const. G” was described as a general duty officer in West Kelowna. In 2016 he said he was given information about a specific vehicle and individual. He said he tracked the vehicle and attempted to pull it over, but the vehicle took off at a high rate of speed, endangering other road users as it blew through a stop sign and passed other vehicles.

An arrest was made a short time later.

The defence intended to attack “Const. G’s” observations as either "not truthful, or at the very best, made with reckless indifference to the truth.” That obligated the Crown to offer the disciplinary information as disclosure, but the Crown refused to produce the entire disciplinary record. When a hearing was called, a lawyer for the RCMP also opposed the defence’s application to access the records, calling them “irrelevant.”

But Burdett said neither she nor the defence can make such conclusions without more information.

“(Informal disciplinary hearings) can deal with infractions where deceit and dishonesty are present,” she wrote. "Without further information, it is not possible to conclude Const. G.’s actions were not dishonest or deceitful. It appears on the face of it that his actions breached RCMP policy and protocols and he may have abused his position of authority with the RCMP. He may have derived an advantage from his actions. It is clear his actions took place over a number of months. Without further information, it is not possible to determine his motives, whether he gained financially from his conduct, or assess the types of individuals to whom he disclosed police information.”

She acknowledged that the officer has privacy rights, but they must give way to an accused person's right to make full answer and defence to criminal charges. She ordered that the entire disciplinary file must be disclosed to the lawyer only, along with further protection of the information, because the officer’s reliability was central to the Crown’s case.

To contact a reporter for this story, email Marshall Jones or call 250-718-2724 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, 2018