5,484
edits
Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) |
Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
==== c) Step 3: Informal Resolution or Mediation ==== | ==== c) Step 3: Informal Resolution or Mediation ==== | ||
A complaint may be resolved informally at any time before or during an investigation if the matter is suitable and the complainant and the police officer agree in writing to the resolution. Informal | A complaint may be resolved informally at any time before or during an investigation if the matter is suitable and the complainant and the police officer agree in writing to the resolution. Informal resolution or mediation is a voluntary, confidential process that provides a non-confrontational opportunity for both parties to talk to each other and hear how their actions affected the other. If a complainant does not want to meet the police officer face to face, a neutral third party or professional mediator can facilitate and help the parties reach an agreement. Within ''10 business days'' after agreeing to the proposed informal resolution, either party may revoke agreement by notifying the relevant discipline authority or the Commissioner in writing. | ||
If a complainant strongly objects to his or her complaint being informally resolved, and | If a complainant strongly objects to his or her complaint being informally resolved, and would prefer it be investigated immediately, he or she should let the OPCC know and provide reasons. Common reasons include fear of intimidation by the officer, the wish to have it formally investigated and substantiated, and a lack of time to participate in an informal process due to economic or other circumstances. Usually this objection is sufficient to move the complaint directly to the investigation step. | ||
A complaint may also be resolved by mediation. If the Police Complaint Commissioner agrees, a professional mediator may be appointed to assist the complainant and the officer in resolving the complaint. The mediator is selected by the administrator of the BC Mediator’s Roster and is completely independent from any police department or the OPCC. | |||
==== d) Step 4: Investigation ==== | |||
An investigation into a misconduct complaint is usually conducted by the originating department’s Professional Standards Section. The Commissioner may, if the circumstances require, order that an external police agency conduct the investigation. The OPCC will assign the file to an analyst, who will oversee the investigation conducted by the Professional Standards investigator and ensure that the investigation is thorough, impartial, and completed in a timely manner. All investigations must be completed within six months. During the investigation, the complainant and member will be periodically updated about the investigation’s progress. At the conclusion of the investigation, the investigator will submit a final investigation report to the discipline authority, who will then decide whether the allegations are substantiated and, if so, propose corrective or disciplinary measures. | |||
What happens next in the process depends on whether the allegations are substantiated or not. | |||
==== e) If the Complaint Is Substantiated ==== | |||
===== (1) Pre-Hearing Conference ===== | |||
If the discipline authority decides that the allegation of misconduct is substantiated and merits disciplinary or corrective measures, the discipline authority may conduct a confidential prehearing conference with the police officer, if doing so is not contrary to the public interest. At the hearing, the officer has an opportunity admit the misconduct and accept disciplinary or corrective measures. If the officer and the discipline authority at the prehearing conference agree on disciplinary measures, and the Commissioner gives his or her approval, the matter is considered resolved. This resolution is final and cannot be reviewed by a court on any ground. | |||
===== (2) Disciplinary Proceeding ===== | |||
If a prehearing conference is not held, or if it does not result in a resolution of each allegation of misconduct against the police officer, the discipline authority must convene a disciplinary proceeding to determine appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, within 40 business days of receiving the final investigation report. However, the discipline authority must cancel this proceeding if the Commissioner arranges a public hearing about the impugned conduct. | |||
The complainant must receive at least 15 days’ notice of a disciplinary proceeding. The complainant may provide written or oral submissions in advance of the hearing but cannot actually attend the proceeding. | |||
The discipline authority must, if appropriate, choose measures to correct and educate officers rather than measures intended to blame and punish. Unless the Police Complaints Commissioner orders a public hearing, the resolution is final. | |||
==== f) If the Complaint Is Not Substantiated ==== | |||
===== (1) Retired Judge ===== | |||
Previously, only a police commissioner would review the file. However, complainants can now request that the Commissioner appoint a retired judge to review the file and determine whether or not the decision was correct. The complainant must make the request in writing within 10 business days of receiving the discipline authority’ s decision. It is now common to have a retired judge review the file in less serious cases. Note that there is a more realistic chance of success when the commission appoints a retired judge. For further information, please see: http://www.opcc.bc.ca. g)Public HearingThe Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner (“OPCC”) can order public hearings into matters involving misconduct by municipal police officers in British Columbia. After the investigation into the complaint has concluded, the complainant or the police officer may request a public hearing within 20 business days of receiving notice of the decision, or the OPCC may initiate a public hearing itself if a public hearing is necessary in the public interest. In Florkow v British Columbia (Police Complaint Commissioner), 2013 BCCA 92, the BC Court of Appeal found that under the current Police Act the OPCC can only hold a public hearing after certain stages of the complaint process — after the discipline authority has concluded its investigation, after the retired judge has reviewed the file, or after the disciplinary proceeding. (1)Test for Ordering Public Hearing In deciding whether such a hearing is necessary in the public interest, the Police Complaints Commissioner must consider all relevant factors, including: the nature and seriousness of the complaint; the nature and seriousness of the alleged harm caused by the police officer, including whether the officer’ s conduct has undermined public confidence in the police or its disciplinary processes; whether a public hearing would assist in ascertaining the truth; whether a case can be made that the investigation was flawed, the proposed disciplinary measures are inappropriate, or the discipline authority incorrectly interpreted the law. | |||
p. 5-18 | p. 5-18 |