RCMP botched investigation into Vanderhoof police shooting: report

An RCMP officer was justified in shooting a drunken suspect in the B.C. interior town of Vanderhoof in 2004, but the police investigation into the shooting was inadequate, a report by the RCMP complaints commissioner concludes.

The report by Paul Kennedy, the chairman of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, was released on Wednesday, more than four years after Const. Ryan Sheremetta shot and killed Kevin St. Arnaud.

In it, Kennedy wrote that Sheremetta was justified in believing there was no way to protect himself from serious harm or death when he confronted St. Arnaud in a soccer field, other than by using deadly force.

“Const. Sheremetta shot Mr. St. Arnaud in self-defence after reasonably perceiving that Mr. St. Arnaud posed a threat of grievous bodily harm or death,” said Kennedy, in statement released on Wednesday with the report.

But Kennedy also found parts of the subsequent police investigation were inadequate, and that it lacked impartiality. He found that Sheremetta’s RCMP colleagues failed to preserve the scene of the shooting and missed contradictions between Sheremetta’s story and that of his partner, who was a key witness in the incident.

In the report, Kennedy made several recommendations for the RCMP to develop policies for investigations of RCMP shootings, including the need to ensure real and perceived impartiality.
Officer returned to duty

After the report was released, RCMP Chief Superintendent Dick Bent apologized to the St. Arnaud family for what he called a sad outcome to an encounter between a police officer and a citizen and said he agreed with the commissioner’s recommendation that the RCMP should embrace the “best practices” of a police force.

Bent also said Sheremetta returned to active duty after the report was released and that no officers would face disciplinary measures for the flawed investigation, because there was no malice on the part of RCMP investigators.

“We looked at the shortcomings in the investigation as a learning experience. We wanted to improve the way we are doing things, so we approached it from that perspective as being an education of our members,” Bent said Wednesday in Vancouver.

Lawyer Cameron Ward, who represented St. Arnaud’s family at a coroner’s inquest into the death, disagreed with Kennedy’s findings that shooting was justified.

“In short I think this is a clear case of culpable homicide: that this RCMP officer shot an unarmed man in circumstances where there was absolutely no justification,” Ward told CBC News.

Ward said the case was an another example of why police should not be allowed to investigate themselves.
Conflicting accounts

The shooting occurred in the early hours of Dec. 19, 2004, after officers, who were responding to a call about a break-in at a shopping mall pharmacy, chased a drunken St. Arnaud into a nearby soccer field.

Sheremetta later recounted that as he was stepping away from St. Arnaud, he slipped in the snow-covered field and fell on his back, and from that position he shot St. Arnaud three times in self-defence as the intoxicated man lunged forward to attack him.

Sheremetta’s testimony, however, differed from that of his partner Const. Colleen Erickson, who had just arrived on the scene at the time of the incident. Erickson testified she observed St. Arnaud charging at Sheremetta, who subsequently shot St. Arnaud twice while standing approximately two feet away.

An autopsy confirmed that St. Arnaud was shot three times in the chest.

In February 2006, the Crown said it would not lay charges in the death, although Sheremetta was later suspended from duty with pay in 2008 for giving misleading testimony at the inquest.
Commissioner launched investigation

Less than a month later, Kennedy announced he would investigate to determine whether Sheremetta was justified in his use of deadly force and whether the north district major crime unit conducted a fair and adequate investigation of the incident.

Kennedy also found Sheremetta’s perception of the incident was likely affected by his heightened state of anxiety and that Erickson’s recollection of the precise details was not perfect either.

However, the key circumstances of the shooting were sufficiently corroborated by a biomechanics expert who determined, through analysis of footprints, that St. Arnaud was moving toward Sheremetta with an increasing stride length, Kennedy concluded.

Main findings regarding the shooting:

* The officer had reason to fear for his life and fired.
* The officer did not fire while down on the ground, as he testified, but in a standing position.
* The officer had reasonable perception that Kevin St. Arnaud posed a threat.

Main findings regarding the RCMP investigation of shooting:

* Failed to secure shooting scene.
* Failed to remove RCMP partner/eyewitness at earliest opportunity.
* Failed to secure break-in scene at pharmacy.
* Failed to seize blood samples from the snow.
* Failed to find non-detachment members to take statements.
* Asked leading questions in interview with officer who fired and RCMP eyewitness.
* Failed to apprehend the importance of contradictory evidence about whether Const. Sheremetta was standing or lying down when he fired.
* Failed to re-interview witnesses about that discrepancy.