Tony Blais (Sun Media) - Freedom of the press and upholding the openness of the Canadian court system has trumped the privacy issues of a cocaine-addicted former undercover RCMP officer.
An Edmonton judge today vacated a publication ban issued in an ongoing drug trafficking case and granted Sun Media access to exhibits in the proceeding.
Included in the court documents was information confirming former RCMP Const. Steve Gillespie was addicted to crack cocaine while working as an undercover officer for the Integrated Response to Organized Crime unit.
The documents also reveal Gillespie, who is no longer a Mountie, used methamphetamine when crack cocaine was not available and said he liked the effects of it because “it was cheaper, he was less paranoid and could work and be around people.”
Gillespie revealed he spent $80,000 of his own money to support his drug habit, which equates to 1,000 grams of cocaine at $80 per gram, say the documents.
According to interviews done in an internal RCMP investigation, Gillespie told a fellow officer he was “hooked and addicted immediately” after trying crack for the first time and said his desire stemmed from stress at work.
Gillespie, who had been promoted to corporal just before admitting his addiction in 2005, also said his habit was “like a switch” and if he woke up and needed to use, “it would be out of his control.”
He admitted being a “binge user” and buying the cocaine from dial-a-dopers, but denied using informants, targets or other contacts he met through his work to obtain drugs.
Another officer told an internal inquiry Gillespie was starting to get “delusions of grandeur” and “go wild and stuff.” When asked to elaborate, the officer said it stemmed from the undercover cops “working” bikers.
“They got in the role and the way they acted, the only difference between them and the bikers, was that they had a badge,” said the officer, who cannot be identified.
Gillespie tried to prevent Sun Media from accessing the exhibits, but Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Doreen Sulyma ruled in favor of Sun Media, citing the importance of the freedom of the press and the openness of the courts.
Sun Media lawyer Barry Zalmanowitz argued the public had a right to know that a person sworn to uphold the law had a problem with illegal drugs.
“It’s clearly a breach of duty and a breach of trust for a member of a police force to be abusing cocaine,” he said.
Gillespie’s cocaine addiction was first revealed when an accused drug dealer became upset the Crown wanted to use evidence against him that comes from a wiretap operation approved on the word of the drug addicted Mountie.
3 responses so far ↓
1 Brenda // Nov 8, 2007 at 14:09
So why is he a member of the RCMP?
Reminds me of a Fith Estate report I saw years ago where an informat being paid by RCMP on the east coast of Canada was on both side collecting from them and selling to the public killed a man. I think it was his sister from Fredericton that was on the CBC and she was a lawyer complaining back then about their dealings… nothing was done
2 G.E. // Nov 26, 2007 at 17:40
First of all, he hasn’t been a member of the RCMP for quite some time.
Second of all, there are issues concerning the health and well being of Mr. Gillespie that are no one’s concern except his family and friends. I say this only because human frailty is not something that members of the RCMP are immune from and to judge others without complete knowledge of a situation is to invite misinterpretation and misunderstanding.
True, there are issues around the concept of public trust this cannot be denied. However, for the court case that this information was used by the defense to deflect legal attention from its rightful target; the fact that Mr. Gillespie has been accused of using illegal drugs really has no bearing or merit.
His role, according to court documents, was to advise the RCMP as to how to obtain the necessary documentation to carry out a wiretap. He did not participate in nor conduct any investigations connected to this case. Again, one is given cause to wonder at the blatantly crass misuse of a man’s weakness and tragic personal situation by legal counsel in the defence of those who would sell poison to others.
In a democracy, it is indeed of the utmost importance to monitor the actions of those who are charged with upholding the law in order to make sure that their conduct does not negatively impact the rights of citizens. Since it is a considerable stretch to consider how Mr. Gillespie’s role in this case represents a denial of anyone’s rights, again I question the motive of the lawyer’s in this case and the need to open this line of inquiry beyond a transparent attempt to free known drug dealers.
I suppose what angers me most about this is that often the good men and women of our RCMP, armed forces, and emergency services who run intro problems or personal difficulties are ostracized and demonized rather that given the same level of aid, assistance, and understanding afforded to even those with a long history of breaking the law.
3 GetReal // Nov 27, 2007 at 14:44
Finally, a note of sanity and sober thought. Its all too easy to jump with both feet on some issue before the facts are known. A favorite trick of lawyers when throwing up a smoke screen to try and hid the deeds of the accused. God forbid we should let facts confuse the issue. Isn’t it funny that we want robots for emergency personnel when doing their jobs strictly by the book, except when we become personally involved, then we want people with compassion and insight, without any human frailty.
You must log in to post a comment.