5,484
edits
Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) |
Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
===== (1) Retired Judge ===== | ===== (1) Retired Judge ===== | ||
Previously, | 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. | |||
p. 5- | ==== g) Public Hearing ==== | ||
The 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. 5-24 |