(CTV) – North Vancouver RCMP Corporal Darren Baker faced his colleagues at a RCMP disciplinary hearing on Wednesday, after admitting driving drunk while off-duty.
Baker was taken to the West Vancouver Police Department in December 2007 after West Vancouver police noticed him driving erratically. His blood alcohol level was two-and-a-half times over the legal limit.
The RCMP could have fired Baker for misconduct. Instead, he found out at the disciplinary hearing at Vancouver’s E Division headquarters he’ll get a letter on his file and a penalty of 10 days without pay.
Baker, a former school-liaison officer, also escaped criminal charges last month because of a technicality. The Crown forgot to request a police surveillance video of Baker being booked at the West Vancouver department.
An RCMP spokeswoman said the penalty of the misconduct was lower because of the efforts he had since made.
“It appears Mr. Baker [had] gone to great lengths to deal with alcohol addictions and he had personal family problems,” said Cst. Annie Linteau.
B.C.’s Attorney General is denying police officers get special treatment.
“The same standard applies to the police as to anyone else when it comes to laying charges. It may that a fault in the evidence or some shortcoming in the evidence, otherwise he would be charged,” said Wally Oppal.
When asked whether the public should take impaired campaigns seriously when one of their own members was not following law, Inspector Norm Gaumont, head of the RCMP’s traffic division, acknowledged it was an important issue.
“Well, I believe the big issue here is we all recognized the dangers of impaired driving. We all have to be vocal and indicating that it’s just not tolerable,” he said.
Bob Rorison of the Mother’s Against Drunk Drivers of B.C. said his organization is “absolutely, thoroughly disgusted,” adding that less than 50 per cent of DUI charges ever result in a conviction.
The Mounties had a chance to send a strong message and blew it, he added.
“This guy got off with a little slap on the wrist, and he walks away and he’s free and you know what about all those lives he endangered on the highway while he was driving? Does he not consider that?” He said.
The Crown announced Thursday it won’t be appealing the case. Baker is already back on the job.
The tapes are not routinely pulled out and entered in evidence on every issue. Just as the radio transmission tapes and the phone line tapes are not routinely “pulled” out of circulation. If the defense feels there is some merit to the disclosure, it is forwarded to the Crown who will decide of they wish to comply. The Crown have to defend their actions if they feel the request is frivolous or useless.
The Crown, when in doubt, will forward most requests to the police for items of disclosure. It appears that the request from the defense was not actioned by the Crown. Do not confuse full disclosure under Stinchcombe with other case law that negates / provides some disclosure upon amplification.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
1
It is the job of the police to collect and preserve evidence. The tape should have been pulled out of circulation and secured as evidence.
Is it not case law that the police turn over all evidence to the defense, through the crown?
The tape was not lost or stolen or destroyed. Good grief people, read the information. The Crown prosecutor(s) failed to request the video tape from the police, to disclose it to the defense, even after a request by the defense. Those tapes are routinely reused after a set period of time as per the various departments policy. This is not news.
The Crown has a duty to ensure all relevant material is disclosed to the Defense, along with items that the defense feels would assist in their defense. It’s simple, the Crown blew it.
Still waiting Alcan, your opinion on the RCMP internal court?
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
1 
0
I reiterate, the tape was not lost or destroyed, it was reused in the cycle after 30 days, as is the policy. The Crown did not ask for it even though the defense did. The failure was on the part of the Crown prosecutor(s), not the police. At least place your vitriol and suggestive comments in the right direction.
It did not “vanish” Alcan. And why do you refuse to comment on the RCMP internal court system? I have asked directly twice. I can only assume you wish to ignore anything that does not fit into your anti police posture.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
0
It’s all part of the job… no one is accountable so it just vanishes…
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
0
The tape in question was not lost or destroyed, it was recirculated into the turnaround for re use as per policy. The Crown FORGOT to ask for it even though the defense requested a copy, which by the way is standard procedure for the defense bar, and just as standard for the Crown to request for their evidence as well.
Convenient? Perhaps, the law? definitely. One of many many steps now to bring a case to court? Absolutely. Would you be suggesting that an officer of the court, the Prosecutor, deliberately did not ask for the tape knowing it could get the accused off? Which one, as no doubt more than one touched the file and had activity with it?
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
0
So, Alcan, I am still waiting for your opinion on the RCMP internal tribunal that has successfully surmounted the double jeopardy rules as well as ignoring established criminal / civil law in assessing penalties against its own officers. Are you in favor of this being allowed? Do you think municipal and provincial forces should be subject to the same treatment? Do you think it is fair?
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
0
Who lost or destroyed the missing video tape? Convenient was it not?
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
0
You did not proffer an opinion on the RCMP kangaroo court.
Are you glad the RCMP has an internal kangaroo court that can disregard established criminal law?
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
0
Yes in a real court law this is the way but not in an inquiry.
There they just get a get out of jail free card.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
0
Perhaps your should read R vs Stinchcombe. Its been out for quite a while. This is YOUR legal system at work. The defense is ENTITLED to ALL the evidence, and if some is missing or not readily forthcoming in a timely manner, the WHOLE case goes out the window. Makes no difference what the other evidence is.
You can find the case here: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1991/1991canlii45/1991canlii45.html
Other refining case law on the subject is also quite instructive such as the delay in disclosure such as:
[outside link]
It happens on a regular basis and this is where your attention should be drawn. Who is responsible for this situation?
So are you glad they have a kangaroo court that can disregard established criminal law??
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
0
No evidence? You mean like breathalyzer data? Oh, maybe that was lost just like the detachment’s video tapes. And what about notes and testimony of the arresting officers? True, those seem to be unreliable when RCMP investigates RCMP, but that used to be how people were convicted.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
0
More than you would get. The RCMP kangaroo court gave him about a $4000 fine plus reprimand and lawyers fees. Got a problem with their kangaroo court punishing without proof? Seems its better than the real thing.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
0
Perhaps Cpl. Baker can make up for his loss by working 5 days of overtime. Much better this way, no fine, no criminal record and he won’t even have to pay a premium to ICBC for excess points.
No problem, he didn’t kill anybody, this time.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
0