New Glasgow, N.S. (Halifax Chronicle Herald) - A Pictou County Mountie charged with stealing gasoline last year has been accused of shoplifting from a New Glasgow department store.
New Glasgow police charged RCMP Const. Blair Francis Gorman, 42, with theft under $5,000 this week after investigating a weekend complaint from the town’s Wal-Mart store.
The suspended officer will be arraigned in New Glasgow provincial court March 31.
Const. Gorman was also charged last year with stealing gasoline from the federal government, defrauding the federal government through unauthorized use of a special credit card and breach of trust by a peace officer between April 20 and July 14.
He was stationed in the Pictou County office of the Pictou County District RCMP at the time of the alleged offences.
Const. Gorman chose trial by Nova Scotia Supreme Court judge alone and will have a preliminary hearing in New Glasgow provincial court April 16.
Sgt. Mark Gallagher, provincial RCMP spokesman, said Thursday that Const. Gorman was suspended in July 2007 after the investigation into the first series of alleged offences.
“This individual is now suspended with pay and is not working in any capacity for the RCMP,” he said, adding another internal code of conduct investigation will be held regarding the latest charge.
7 responses so far ↓
1 Gendai // Feb 23, 2008 at 15:36
So why is this sthief till being paid with our TAX DOLLARS
2 speaking_my_mind // Feb 23, 2008 at 18:10
I would venture to guess the reason his is suspended with pay is because the above report says that he has only been “charged” and not convicted of the crime.
This is one of those inbetween cases where there is enough of a question of his integrity, but not a definitive answer. Innocent until proven guilty.
However, this begs the question that if it is an internal matter why couldn’t he be found guilty in service court and then suspended without pay? Yeah, I would like to know how suspensions are broken down and what qualifies with pay and without pay.
3 GetReal // Feb 24, 2008 at 03:37
Very simple. Only the most serious crimes rate suspension without pay. You are actually innocent until proven guilty. If there was no conviction and you had suspended someone without pay the lawsuit following would be punishing to the employer. The criminal investigation is part and parcel of any internal proceeding. You cannot put the cart before the horse or you will be sued. Case in point the lawsuit by the officer in BC who was not convicted in criminal court and not tried in their administrative proceeding. However, the abuse of process is obviously serious enough to get sued over.
The criminal process is too long. If it had been heard into the first charges in a timely manner, he would no doubt have been fired and thus no repeat of criminality payed for by our tax dollars subsequent to that.
4 Gendai // Feb 25, 2008 at 13:41
I think I understand now
Justice must be done in a certain way when it comes to certain people and another way when it comes to others. I think Justice should not only be done here but Justice I`m told should also be preceived to have been done and in the cases of the National Police Force neither is done.
Is this what you mean.
5 speaking_my_mind // Feb 25, 2008 at 22:17
Gendai, that is quite the diatribe you have going on here!
I think what Get Real is trying to say is that this isn’t a black and white issue, with a thousand shades of grey. In a perfect world things would not come to suspension with pay because the criminal courts would properly do the job.
An employee has rights and the courts not processing cases fast enough is the root of the problem and a condition employers are forced to work around.
6 GetReal // Feb 26, 2008 at 16:51
The system works the same for everybody there Gendai. There are some variations on the internal side dependent on the collective agreement between employer and employee with respect to procedures. For example, unions have their own set of guidelines to follow when their members are involved with a management, criminal, or legal dispute.
However, the law is always the same. You are innocent until proven guilty. Some employers guidelines allow them certain latitudes and others do not. The severity of the offence usually dictates the breadth of the employers response. The response will be dictated by the collective agreement.
To give you an example you may understand, if you were to take an automatic weapon and gun down a restaurant full of patrons, your employer would be able to take more action against you initially, as opposed to an allegation of shoplifting a candy bar.
7 Gendai // Feb 26, 2008 at 17:53
Thousand of shades of gray eh!
That explains why it`s no longer cut and dry, black and white, good and evil; it`s now moved in the Thousands of shades of gray… no wonder it`s taking so long.
You must log in to post a comment.