Saskatchewan (CBC News) – A provincial court judge in Regina has slammed the RCMP for destroying video evidence that could have been used in a drinking and driving case.
“I can only conclude that the police do not understand their obligations to preserve and disclose evidence,” Judge Clifford Toth wrote in a decision dated Aug. 18.
Toth decided the case against the driver should not proceed.
Toth’s criticism was directed at RCMP detachments throughout Saskatchewan and their policies on saving surveillance camera videos.
The case involved a driver who was stopped by Lumsden RCMP in June of 2009 on suspicion of impaired driving.
The accused was taken to the detachment, about 30 kilometres west of Regina, in order to take a breath sample.
According to the decision, the force has a video system that records goings-on in different parts of the detachment, including the cells and breath-testing room.
After the man was charged, his lawyer asked Crown prosecutors for copies of the video. The request was made on July 16. However, while the Crown sent some documents on the case to the lawyer, the video was not included.
According to Toth’s decision, the videos from June 27 were purged from the RCMP’s system on Aug. 21, 55 days after they were recorded, “in keeping with detachment policy.”
“Given the Crown’s obligation to preserve evidence and the fact that the defence drew the Crown’s attention to the video in question, failure to secure the videos … constitutes unacceptable negligence,” Toth wrote.
But he didn’t stop with the Crown.
The judge also criticized the RCMP over how it handles digital video evidence.
“It is now 2010 and VHS recording systems are rare,” Toth noted, pointing out there’s no longer any need to store bulky tapes. He said the RCMP could easily store many hours of video surveillance on compact discs or memory sticks.
Toth said a retention period of 55 days is too short and should be extended to six months or one year.
Toth also pointed out in his decision that the circumstances in the Lumsden case were not unique and other cases had raised similar issues.
“For more than 10 years, this court has repeatedly commented on the video retention periods of detachments around the province,” Toth said. “Our comments appear to have gone unheeded.”
He also cited a long list of cases from other jurisdictions, notably in Ontario, where similar problems have arisen. Toth specifically mentioned cases from Newmarket, Ont., where police routinely erased tapes after a short period of time.
According to Toth, the RCMP’s attitude amounted to neglect of duty.
“Police detachments, including the Lumsden detachment, appear to be pursuing a policy of routine destruction of … evidence,” Toth said. “I can only conclude that the police do not understand their obligations to preserve and disclose evidence.”
A spokesman for the RCMP in Saskatchewan told CBC News Friday that police have been aware of the issue for some time and that detachments have been told to be more diligent.
RCMP admit error
“There’s no doubt that we did err,” Sgt. Paul Dawson said about the Lumsden case. “It wasn’t so much about our technical capabilities as it was about disclosing the information when we could have.”
Dawson said the current retention period of two months should be long enough to meet disclosure requests, although he could not explain why the video from Lumsden was not made available to the defence.
“There was a request made … we didn’t fulfill that request,” Dawson said. “It was something that should have been done.”
He added that video formats have changed over the years.
“This type of technology moves very quickly,” Dawson said.
Neglect of duty, interesting comment by the judge and especially as the RCMP knew they should have kept the evidence.
“With all the blather about a video cassette tape”, well it wasn’t a tape it was a digital recording which if they had followed the recommendations could have been downloaded and kept forever.
Thankfully Judge Toth is much wiser than the RCMP.
The job of the defence attorney is to DEFEND, if the prosecution, including the RCMP fail to do their job properly they must be held accountable especially considering the RCMP admitted they knew better.
In the article I never read that the driver was impaired, only he was stopped for suspicion of impared driving, and poor police work lost the case.
I am totally against Drinking and Driving but the law must be upheld properly and obviously in this case it wasn’t.
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
12 
4
It’s about time someone says something but does it go far enough by blaming the policies they probably ignore anyways.
Is this why we have so much plea bargaining/reduce charges going on today in our courts.
Here’s an unsolved case that dates back to 1981 in New Brunswick where a police officer was brutally shot and his fight to have his case dealth with.
The very fact that this case remains unsolved is reason enough to have a public inquiry into this matter but no one wants to review this officers case remains unsolved and why investigators destroyed court evidence only months later.
Here’s the link, it’s concerning to say the least.
Moncton RCMP Inspector Huot;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeYD1s6wVQ8
NB RCMP Crime Stoppers; (Q:) Is this really what happen or has it been altered?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iECS7V0CwhI
Moncton MLA Mike Murphy;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=so76XTH8Cuo
New Brunswick Legislation Assembly on Motion 11, the Fredericton debate?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywtjL2G8pDw
Just to name a few.
It also makes one wonder how long has this kind of investigation work/questionable actions been ignored and tolerated by the very ones that should have done something about it.
The senior officers, CIB Readers, case reviewers/crown prosecutors and judges are the ones that are privy to these kinds of actions from officers first and the question remains what kind of police training are they getting and why have they not spoken out or taken action before this?
The question remains, why would a police officer making an arrest and going to court destroy evidence is it not dah! but to protect their own but or buts?
They deserve to see their cases thrown out of court and I would like to see some of them go out the door with them. I believe it’s not always an accident and for those decisions made I would like to see allot more than a two year old slap on the hand when they are on the job for years for the pitiful work they do. Lets face it some of these officers should be doing something else.
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
17 
10
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
16 
26
Regina-based judge stays case after RCMP destroy footage
By Lori Coolican
Saskatchewan News Network; Postmedia News, Regina Leader-Post
August 28, 2010
A Regina-based provincial court judge had stern words for the RCMP earlier this month when he ordered a stay of proceedings against a man accused of drunk driving.
“I can only conclude that the police do not understand their obligations to preserve and disclose evidence. In these circumstances, any remedy short of a stay of proceedings would be inappropriate,” Judge Clifford Toth remarked in a written decision dated Aug. 18.
Rhory Banford was charged with impaired driving after a Lumsden RCMP officer pulled him over on June 27, 2009. While he was at the detachment for a breath test, his movements were monitored and recorded by a series of video surveillance cameras.
Less than three weeks later, Banford’s defence lawyer made a routine request for disclosure of the evidence against him — including the detachment’s surveillance footage.
But the footage was never turned over.
The Crown prosecutor who handled the case later ascertained the videos had been kept by the Lumsden detachment for 55 days after Banford’s arrest, “and then purged in keeping with detachment policy,” Toth noted.
When the case reached the trial stage, Banford’s lawyer argued the destruction of that piece of evidence had severely compromised his client’s charter right to make a full answer and defence to the charge.
In his decision, Toth said he did not need to determine that issue, however.
“I am prepared to stay the charge on the basis that the police conduct in question represents a systemic disregard for the Crown’s disclosure obligations and that the integrity of the justice system would be prejudiced by allowing this matter to continue,” he wrote.
“For more than 10 years, this court has repeatedly commented on the video retention periods of detachments around the province; our comments appear to have gone unheeded.
The judge cited multiple previous cases in which the value of police surveillance footage, and the need to retain and disclose it, had been discussed.
“Police detachments, including the Lumsden detachment, appear to be pursuing a policy of routine destruction of highly probative evidence,” he wrote.
Police aren’t destroying evidence in order to avoid disclosing it to the defence — but their motives don’t matter, Toth noted.
“Recycling” surveillance footage may have been necessary in the days when police had to store it on bulky VHS tapes, but that no longer applies in the digital age of expandable hard drives, DVDs and memory sticks, he wrote.
“The police are carrying out a policy that is insensitive to their disclosure obligations and to the needs of the justice system. This policy has gone unexplained, and it is all the more inexplicable given the advances in technology to which I have referred.”
Saskatoon city police spokeswoman Alyson Edwards said the municipal force retains any surveillance footage it gathers at police headquarters for a period of 13 months.
RCMP spokesman Sgt. Paul Dawson said the destruction of surveillance footage from detachments is “more of a technological issue” than a matter of policy for the national force.
“Right now with our current digital recording equipment, the maximum capability is to retain this media for up to 60 days. My understanding is it automatically overrides it or tapes over it,” he said.
“In this specific case, the issue is really one of disclosure in that we didn’t meet our disclosure requirements. We had notice (of the disclosure request) before those 55 days, but we didn’t fulfil that request.”
Rather than lengthening the retention period in light of decisions such as this one, detachments have been notified that the surveillance footage “must form part of the disclosure package (provided to the Crown), and we’re able to do that well in advance of those 60 days,” Dawson said.
“So it’s more of an emphasis to make sure that is done prior to that (destruction of the footage) occurring. A lot of times, we provide disclosure right after we’ve concluded our investigation.”