OTTAWA POLICE SERVICE DISCIPLINE HEARING

Transcription

1 OTTAWA POLICE SERVICE DISCIPLINE HEARING IN THE MATTER OF ONTARIO REGULATION 268/10 MADE UNDER THE POLICE SERVICES ACT, RSO 1990, AND AMENDMENTS THERETO; AND IN THE MATTER OF THE OTTAWA POLICE SERVICE AND CONSTABLE PETER DAWSON #1571 CHARGE: DISCREDITABLE CONDUCT X2 DISPOSITION WTH REASONS Before: Superintendent Chris Perkins Halton Regional Police Service Appearances: Counsel for the Prosecution: Inspector Chris Renwick Ottawa Police Service Counsel for the Defence: Mr. Mike Lamothe Ottawa Police Association Hearing Date: 2 May 2017 O.P.S. & Constable P. Dawson May 2017 Page 1

2 THE HEARING Constable Peter Dawson has pleaded guilty and been found guilty of two counts of misconduct, in that he: Committed Discreditable Conduct, in that on or about September 18th, 2015, he acted in a disorderly manner or in a manner prejudicial to discipline or likely to bring discredit upon the reputation of the Ottawa Police Service, when he produced Provincial Offence Notice Warnings in which no evidence to support the offence was apparent or existed, contrary to section 2(1)(a)(xi) of the prescribed Code of Conduct, Ontario Regulation 268/10, as amended, and therefore contrary to section 80(1) of the Police Services Act. And further that he: Committed Insubordination, in that between January 5th, 2015, and September 20 th, 2015, he did, without lawful excuse, disobey a lawful order namely Ottawa Police Policy #2.02 on Duty books/note taking, Sections 2, 12 and 14, pertaining to the making of electronic or written notes to document the offence stipulated on Provincial Offence Notices, contrary to section 2(1)(b)(ii) of the prescribed Code of Conduct, Ontario Regulation 268/10, as amended, and therefore contrary to section 80(1) of the Police Services Act. AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS Constable Peter Dawson and Charles Bordeleau, Chief of Police of the Ottawa Police Service, through counsel, agree to and admit the following facts: The respondent officer, Constable Peter Dawson #1571, has been a sworn member of the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) since 2002, proceeded by six years of police service with the Lothian and Borders Police in Scotland. As a result of a criminal search warrant executed at the Leitrim Police Station, two driver copies of Provincial Offence Notice (PON) warnings issued by Constable Dawson were located, resulting in Constable Dawson being suspended February 1, 2016 and the initiation of a Professional Standards Section (PSS) investigation. A PON audit (January 2015 to September 2015) identified issues with Constable Dawson s PON warnings and was referred to PSS for further investigation. During this time period Constable Dawson issued a total of 476 warnings and 346 charges. PSS subsequently detected inconsistencies in Constable Dawson s conduct when issuing PONs to the public. Specifically, Constable Dawson breached OPS Policy 6.13 Provincial Offences Notices, section A (2), and OPS Policy 2.02 Duty Books/Note Taking, sections 2, 12, and 14. PSS investigators detected issues with two of Constable Dawson s PON traffic stops: O.P.S. & Constable P. Dawson May 2017 Page 2

3 On September 18 th, 2015, Constable Dawson engaged in a traffic stop for the offence of speeding. Subsequently, Constable Dawson entered one charge and one warning on the PON system: PON Z charge for the offence of speeding, s128 HTA. PON Z warning for the offence of permit not signed in ink, s8(1) O Reg 628- HTA. Constable Dawson served the driver with the charge for speeding, which the driver acknowledged (PON Z). The driver denied being served with a warning for the unsigned permit and the officer s duty book did not indicate the basis for this offence. The PSS investigation located both the officer s copy and the driver s copy of the warning, which was not served on the driver. Constable Dawson issued PON Z without evidence to support the offence. On September 18 th, 2015, Constable Dawson engaged in a traffic stop for the offence of speeding. Subsequently, Constable Dawson entered one charge and one warning on the PON system: PON Z charge for the offence of speeding, s128 HTA; and PON Z warning for the offence of fail to surrender insurance card, s3(1) CAIA; Constable Dawson served the driver with the speeding charge, which the driver acknowledged (PON Z). The driver denied being warned about failing to surrender the insurance card and the officer s duty book does not indicate the basis for this warning. The PSS investigation located both the officer s copy and the driver s copy of the warning, which was not served on the driver. Constable Dawson issued PON Z without evidence to support the offence. Between January 1 st, 2015, and September 20 th, 2015, Constable Dawson entered 176 warnings on the OPS electronic system without entering notes in his duty book or the e- ticket itself. Constable Dawson has no prior discipline issues with PSS. PLEA Based on the foregoing facts, on 2 May 2017, Constable Dawson appeared before Superintendent Chris Perkins of the Halton Regional Police Service and pleaded guilty to one count of discreditable conduct as specified in Section 2 (1)(a)(xi) of the Schedule, O.P.S. & Constable P. Dawson May 2017 Page 3

4 and one count of insubordination as specified in Section 2(1)(b)(ii), both of the prescribed Code of Conduct, Ontario Regulation 268/10, as amended, and is thereby guilty of misconduct contrary to Section 80 (1) (a) of the Police Services Act. Constable Dawson and the Prosecutor acting on behalf of Charles Bordeleau, Chief of Police, jointly agree and recommend that the appropriate penalty for the misconduct set out above is the reduction in rank from First Class to Second Class Constable for a period of five (5) months. Once misconduct has been established, it is proper for the Tribunal to consider, where relevant, a variety of factors in determining an appropriate disposition. These include the following considerations: 1. Public Interest 2. Seriousness of the Misconduct 3. Remorse 4. Employment History 5. Ability to Reform or Rehabilitate the Officer 6. Need for Specific and General Deterrence 7. Damage to the Reputation of the Service 8. Handicap or Other Relevant Circumstances 9. Effect on the Officer and his/her Family 10. Management s Approach to the Misconduct 11. Consistency in Penalty 12. Effect of Publicity SUBMISSIONS ON DISPOSITION The prosecution submits that the objectives of discipline are to correct unacceptable behaviour, to deter others from similar behaviour and to assure the public that the police are under control. The considered factors may be relevant to aggravating or mitigating an appropriate penalty. The prosecution submits that the proposed joint position on penalty addresses these important penalty factors, and provided a summary of which factors to draw to the Tribunal s attention, and these were adopted by the defence. They are as follows: Public Interest The public expect police officers to conduct thorough investigations and to be accurate and truthful in the official documents they produce while fulfilling their duties. The facts O.P.S. & Constable P. Dawson May 2017 Page 4

5 of this incident would affect the confidence of community members who trust police officers to enforce the law. The public and the Service have an expectation that officers have a higher standard of behavior, and that they will fulfill their duties and abide by their oath. Seriousness of the Misconduct Constable Dawson s misconduct is serious in nature and undermines the principle of the public safety mission of the Ottawa Police Service. Constable Dawson entered records on the OPS records system and failed to notify the public of the entry on the system, and this could jeopardize public trust. This brings discredit upon the reputation of the Ottawa Police Service, affects credibility and reliability, and is a serious McNeil consideration. Recognition of the Seriousness of Misconduct Constable Dawson has pleaded guilty and by doing so acknowledges responsibility for his actions. He has admitted not following proper OPS policies and procedures. Constable Dawson recognized the seriousness of the misconduct and the consequences of not having accurate interaction with members of the public. This is a significant mitigating factor and it should be acknowledged that he has accepted responsibility for his actions. Employment History Constable Dawson has been a sworn member of the OPS since 2002 with seven years previous experience with the police in Scotland. He was assigned to patrol until February During this time he completed a job shadow in sexual assault and child abuse from June 20 th to September 11 th, In February 2013 he was temporarily assigned to traffic escort and this was made permanent in April, Constable Dawson is a well-qualified officer. He is a carbine operator; he has completed the General Investigative Technique course, the Collisions Investigations Level Two course, the Motorcycle Operator s Course, and the Advanced Patrol course. In 2004 Constable Dawson received a letter of appreciation from a member of the public for his compassion and thoughtful care while on a call for service. Constable Dawson has no previous history with PSS. Potential to Reform or Rehabilitate the Police Officer Constable Dawson is an effective and productive officer. According to his performance review, he met and exceeded all areas of expectations. There is no prior issue with the O.P.S. & Constable P. Dawson May 2017 Page 5

6 identified conduct. Although his actions in this case were misguided, there is no reason to believe that his behaviour could not be modified with an appropriate penalty. Effect on Police Officer and Police Officer s Family Constable Dawson has been charged formally and as a result, his name is in the media. It is apparent that he has suffered harm to his reputation and it has caused stress to himself and his family. In addition, Constable Dawson will be McNeil positive and, therefore, may be questioned about these charges while testifying. Specific and General Deterrence Any penalty given in this matter will serve to deter Constable Dawson from future misconduct of this nature. It will also serve as a message to all OPS officers that there are consequences for their actions. The organization needs that deterrence and the public demands it. Reputation of the Police Force and Effect of Publicity Constable Dawson s actions will affect the confidence and public trust of members of the community. The community expects the interaction between the police and its membership to be accurate and police records to reflect nothing but full and complete honesty. This hearing has drawn media attention and there is no doubt that Constable Dawson s actions have damaged the reputation of the Ottawa Police Service. Consistency of Disposition The prosecution asserts there is no exact fit for these particular circumstances in case law decisions and asks the Tribunal to consider the following previous OPS decisions: In the case of Constable Covic and OPS (June 17, 2016), the officer issued 4 PON warnings to 2 separate individuals for infractions that had not taken place. The officer demonstrated remorse and took full responsibility for his actions. The Service and Defence submitted a joint position on penalty. The Hearing Officer accepted the joint position on penalty and ordered a demotion of 7 months. In the case of Constable Tierney and OPS (July 11, 2016), the officer issued 15 PON warnings to 9 separate individuals for infractions that had not taken place. He failed to take notes on 154 PON warnings and failed to serve 5 legitimate warnings. The officer demonstrated remorse and took full responsibility for his actions. The Service and Defence submitted a joint position on penalty. The Hearing Officer accepted a joint position on penalty and ordered a demotion of 12 months. O.P.S. & Constable P. Dawson May 2017 Page 6

7 In the case of Constable Ellis and OPS (September 7, 2016), the officer issued 33 false PON warnings to eight separate individuals. The officer also failed to serve and/or verbally warn five different drivers of valid PON warnings. In addition, the officer failed to make any notes on 154 valid PONs. The officer pleaded guilty to two counts of Discreditable Conduct and one count of Insubordination. The Service and Defence submitted a joint position on penalty. The Hearing Officer accepted the joint position on penalty and ordered a demotion of 18 months. In the case of Constable Danson and OPS (October 11, 2016), the officer failed to serve and/or verbally warn three different drivers of five valid PON warnings. The officer pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct. The Service and Defense submitted a joint position on penalty. The Hearing Officer accepted the joint position and ordered a demotion for a period of four months. In the case of Constable Stam and the OPS (November 9, 2016), the officer failed to serve or verbally warn drivers of three valid PON warnings. In addition, the officer issued one PON warning without evidence to support the offence. The officer pleaded guilty to two counts of discreditable conduct. The Service and Defence submitted a joint position on penalty. The Hearing Officer accepted the joint position and ordered a demotion for a period of 4 months. In the case of Constable Benloss and the OPS (December 5, 2016), the officer failed to serve or verbally warn drivers of four valid PON warnings. This officer also issued four PON warnings without evidence to support the offence. In addition, the officer failed to make any notes on 130 valid PONs. The officer pleaded guilty to two counts of discreditable conduct and one count of insubordination. The Service and Defence submitted a joint position on penalty. The Hearing Officer accepted the joint position and imposed a demotion for a period of 8 months. The prosecution submits that these cases should be considered when assessing an appropriate disposition with respect to Constable Dawson. Conclusion It is submitted that the suggested penalty be a demotion from First Class Constable to Second Class for a period of five (5) months with respect to the two counts of misconduct conduct is appropriate given the previously enumerated penalty factors. It is submitted the suggested penalty reflects both the mitigating and aggravating considerations. The officer acknowledged the misconduct and pleaded guilty, eliminating the need for a trial that would have involved calling members of the public and fellow officers to testify. Constable Dawson has no previous misconduct. O.P.S. & Constable P. Dawson May 2017 Page 7

8 The misconduct of Constable Dawson was serious and not in keeping with the expectations of the Ottawa Police Service. The reputation of the police service has been affected in the mind of the public, the numerous affected drivers and other police officers. The prosecution submits the suggested joint position on penalty reflects both the mitigating and aggravating factors, and that the suggested penalty will also serve to reassure the public that the police are accountable to them and the OPS does hold officers who breach their trust accountable. DEFENCE SUBMISSIONS Constable Dawson was hired as a police officer with the Lothian and Borders Police in Edinburgh, Scotland in 1996 and left in As a police officer in Scotland he had an exemplary career and no disciplinary issues, and in 2002 he was offered a position as Constable with the OPS and moved to Ottawa. As an OPS officer he has had no history of discipline or performance issues. Constable Dawson has received several letters of appreciation and commendation in his file. Since 2002 there have never been any issues raised about Constable Dawson s notebook or his note taking practices. In 2012 Constable Dawson was transferred to the Traffic Escort Enforcement Unit and his notebook was very rarely checked. OPS Policy 2.02 states: A supervisor shall review and initial daily, the duty books of officers under his/her command, monitoring the completeness and accuracy of officer s notes and to ensure compliance with policy. This did not happen with Constable Dawson. Constable Dawson has never made notes on warnings and never had an NCO make any comments or suggestions regarding taking notes on warnings since It should also be noted that Constable Dawson issued over 822 PON charges and warnings during the time he was audited from January to September For any charges laid by Constable Dawson, he had very detailed and exemplary notes, including for the two PON charges that went along with the two warnings he is charged with. In the Traffic Escort and Enforcement Unit, Constable Dawson was average in the unit for statistics issuing PON s and was never pressured to issue any more PON s. It was common practice of constables to not make notes on warnings. Constable Dawson was suspended from duty on February 1, 2016 and is still currently suspended. The other 12 officers involved in this Ticket Audit investigation for similar or more PON warning inconsistencies were not suspended but were reassigned to administrative duties. Constable Dawson was treated more harshly than the other officers. Constable Dawson was negatively impacted and harmed by this suspension and suffers some significant physical and mental health ailments as a result. O.P.S. & Constable P. Dawson May 2017 Page 8

9 Constable Dawson s reputation has suffered both personally and professionally. Dozens of news and social media articles have been written about his suspension and these have negatively impacted and harmed not only Constable Dawson but his family as well Constable Dawson s reputation has suffered and he is referred to as a corrupt cop in news articles and social media. Constable Dawson s 16 year old daughter stopped speaking to him as a result of the humiliation of the suspension, and he had to explain to his 9 year old daughter that his badge was taken from him, something she was so proud of. Constable Dawson s wife has also suffered greatly over the past 15 months and recently had to go on disability stress leave due to the distress and suffering the suspension has caused her and her husband. Both Constable Dawson and his wife are currently seeking medical attention weekly to try to manage the trauma and anguish caused as a result of this over 15 month suspension. Constable Dawson is currently on long term disability because of the trauma of the suspension and the way in which the charges were suddenly laid without prior warning. As a result of this over 15 month suspension, Constable Dawson has been seriously impacted and harmed both personally and professionally by this traumatic process. It is also noteworthy that Constable Dawson was not followed up or checked into by his chain of command during this time period as others were who were under the same ticket audit investigation. The 5 month penalty will have a financial loss of approximately $ Constable Dawson accepts his penalty. ANALYSIS Well established jurisprudence provides a framework to follow in determining an appropriate disposition when misconduct has been proven. The Tribunal must consider five principles: 1. The penalty must concur with the actual purpose of police discipline: The police service s interest in maintaining discipline The rights of the respondent officer to be treated fairly The public interest, confidence and expectations of high standards 2. The process must focus more on rehabilitation and correction than punishment. O.P.S. & Constable P. Dawson May 2017 Page 9

10 3. The penalty meted out should be the most favourable in the circumstances. 4. The penalty should be proportionate to the circumstances and balance aggravating and mitigating factors. 5. Police officers are held to a higher standard of conduct compared to others. The Tribunal has heard submissions representing the position of both parties to the hearing and has carefully considered this material. After a finding of guilt, the Tribunal must conclude that the proposed sanction achieves the objectives described. The misconduct alleged in this matter has been articulated by the prosecution and the defence has conceded to its substance. In addition, the joint submission on penalty has established aggravating and mitigating factors that speak to the appropriateness of the proposed penalty. The issues of public interest, the nature of the misconduct, the effect of publicity, and the damage to the reputation of the police service are fundamental considerations in the decision making process and are all related, in my view, to the notion of public trust in policing. Concurrently there exists the employer s willingness and facility to deal appropriately with wrong doing when it comes to light. In the recently released Independent Police Oversight Review the Honourable Michael H. Tulloch noted that: Modern day policing in Canada identifies its roots with the passage of the Metropolitan Police Act in the United Kingdon in 1829, under the guidance of Sir Robert Peel. One of the cornerstones of modern policing is that the police are the public and the public are the police. This principle, associated with Sir Robert Peel, recognizes the indivisibility of the interests of the police and the public. It also underlies the basis for public confidence in the police. It recognizes that the special authority bestowed on the police is at the behest of the public and is to be exercised in the public interest. This is generally referred to as policing by consent. Policing by consent recognizes that the exercise of special powers by the police depends on public approval, also known as legitimacy. The public s acceptance of the police s role in society as legitimate is based on public trust and requires the respect and cooperation of the public. Clearly then, in order to maintain the approval, respect and affection of the public, police officers must be held to high ethical standards. Constable Dawson failed to maintain those standards when he neglected to serve two PON Warnings, and failed to record notes of 176 other warnings. In addition to his action s prejudice to overall discipline, Constable Dawson s misconduct will have had a damaging effect on the reputation of the Ottawa Police Service and on the policing community generally. As was noted in both submissions, there was media attention paid to the charges faced by Constable Dawson. Policing is a challenging profession and officers perform a variety of difficult jobs in trying conditions as a matter of course. The circumstances of these rarely come to the attention of the general public. By contrast, acts of police misconduct such as those committed by Constable Dawson garner considerable public O.P.S. & Constable P. Dawson May 2017 Page 10

11 attention and serve to damage the image of policing. It takes tremendous effort to build public trust in policing, never more so than in current society. The behaviour of an individual officer can influence many and while public support and trust must continually be nourished, it takes very little to discredit it. Constable Dawson s misconduct undermines that public trust and will be seen by some elements of the community as yet further proof of malfeasance by police officers. By his own account, there were media reports of a corrupt cop. To the silent majority of the public, it will be disappointing that a police officer has engaged in activity which is improper and unbecoming. Constable Dawson submits that he was average within his unit for performance measures and he was never under any pressure to issue more PON s. There was no evidence put before the Tribunal to explain the two Warning PON s that were never served on the drivers concerned. As a result of Constable Dawson s actions, records were made of traffic offences by members of the public that had not occurred. Constable Dawson also submits that there were never any concerns raised concerning his duty notes, and despite a policy requiring daily supervisory review, his notebook was rarely checked. He further submits that it was common practice for officers to not make notes on Warning PON s. While this may seemingly hold some merit at face value to the casual observer, it remains wrong. Flagrant breaches of policy do not lessen their wrong mindedness. In addition, the completion of police notes is, in my view, far more than simple compliance with policy. Police notes are fundamentally important to a police service s record keeping and to our justice system; their trustworthiness is of critical importance. Notes are the foundation of any investigation or interaction and may be relevant months or years after an incident. They are intended to provide a creditable record of an event. The contention that supervisors were not checking his notes, while perhaps disturbing, does not diminish the fact that in 176 instances, Constable Dawson did not record anything about the offence warning contact he had with a member of the public; in essence, records were then created on the OPS records management system with no evidence articulated, save for the particulars entered on the face of the warning. Constable Dawson is a police officer with many years of experience. To suggest he had to have his notes reviewed and signed every day to ensure compliance is somewhat oblique. Police officers are trained at the most basic level to record events in their notebook; it is professionalism at its most elementary. Conversely the Ottawa Police Service might perhaps review the obvious impracticality of a daily notebook check and consider a monthly or quarterly audit. Accordingly, in my view, the impact Constable Dawson s misconduct has had on the relationship between the public trust and the Ottawa Police Service, and the policing community in general, is a significantly aggravating factor. Specific and general deterrents are factors to be considered as part of the police discipline process. I am confident there is little need to comment on the issue of a O.P.S. & Constable P. Dawson May 2017 Page 11

12 specific deterrent in this case. There is no reason to believe Constable Dawson will reoffend and appear before another Tribunal as it is abundantly clear this process has had a profound effect on him and his family. With respect to general deterrents, I am bound to consider the penalty imposed in this matter from the perspective of all police officers. Exemplary levels of professionalism and integrity are fundamental elements of the policing profession. When police officers fall short of the legitimate standards expected of them, there must be unequivocal condemnation that irregular behaviour will be vigorously investigated and subjected to discipline. Constable Dawson has recognized the seriousness of his misconduct, has pleaded guilty, and in his own submission, accepts the penalty proposed. This is to his credit, and has prevented a full Police Services Act hearing, and the need for members of the public and other police officers to give evidence. This is a significant mitigating consideration. Constable Dawson s conviction will now be subject to the provisions of Regina v McNeil; the duty of the Crown to disclose records of police misconduct to defence counsel. The definitive impact of this with respect to Constable Dawson is difficult to quantify, but the implication is certain. This may potentially affect any future prosecutions to which he may be a party, so is an aggravating factor. The Tribunal has both heard, and considered, the issue of adverse publicity as Constable Dawson is a representative of the Ottawa Police Service. Additionally there is the consideration of the effect this has had on him personally. This series of events has clearly had a significant impact on his personal circumstances; on not only his reputation, but on his health and mental well-being. The Tribunal does note however, this circumstance has occurred post misconduct, and not before it. In his own submissions, Constable Dawson indicated that he has been referred to as a corrupt cop in news reports. This clearly illustrates the very powerful ability of an unbridled media to frame a story. Notwithstanding the perhaps overwrought comment, the optics to a reader are clear. Constable Dawson himself suffers from this sensationalized reporting. This specifically has caused an acute effect on him. He remains solely responsible for his misconduct, but the after effects suffered by him personally are a mitigating factor. Constable Dawson refers several times in his submissions to the issue of his suspension and the effect this has had on him personally. He contends that he has been treated more harshly than other officers involved in similar misconduct. A police disciplinary Tribunal is a statutory body and limited in its functionality to remain within the scope of its authority. That is to say, it is bound by legislation to address only the notice of hearing, and the facts as presented before it. The issue of Constable Dawson s suspension is an operational deployment decision of the Chief of Police and is not within the purview of the Tribunal to consider when deciding an appropriate sanction. This in no way diminishes the very real effect the O.P.S. & Constable P. Dawson May 2017 Page 12

13 suspension may have had on Constable Dawson, but it cannot, by law, have any bearing on the Tribunal s decision. Constable Dawson still has many years of his service ahead of him, and his knowledge, skills and abilities are an asset to the Ottawa Police Service and to the community. I have no doubt his level of commitment to public service will not abate, and now that this disagreeable distraction from his career is at an end, he will do well in putting it behind him and looking forward. On the occasion of his guilty plea, Constable Dawson was supported by a large crowd of family and friends. This was unprecedented in my experience, and the clear and very moving show of support bodes well for his future. The Tribunal is particularly mindful of the principle of consistency in sentencing. The Prosecution provided six previous Ottawa Police Service cases involving similar facts, but different degrees of misconduct. Constable Ellis, at the high end of the penalty spectrum, was demoted for a period of 18 months. In addition, I have adjudicated three other related cases; Constables Laforest, Gunsolus, and Ralph. These officers were demoted for six weeks, four months, and nine months respectively. The most recent authority on joint submissions on penalty is found in R. v. Anthony- Cook, 2016 SCC 43 [2016] 2 S.C.R The Supreme Court of Canada decision indicates that only in exceptional circumstances should a joint submission be varied, and the decision maker must provide clear and cogent reasons for departing from it. A joint submission on penalty should only be rejected when the proposed sentence would be viewed by reasonable and informed persons as a breakdown in the proper functioning of the justice system. The Ontario Civilian Police Commission has also considered this issue: The Commission and the Courts encourage joint submissions. There are good public policy reasons for doing so and further: joint submissions should be accorded a high level of deference and are not to be disregarded unless there are good and cogent reasons for doing so. Rault v. Law Society 2009 SKCA 81. (See Magabi Suleiman and Ottawa Police Service and Constable Jacky Lord (OCPC #11-11, 4 October 2011 at paras 37 and 38). Having regard to the nine cases previously adjudicated in relation to similar facts, I am unable to establish clear and cogent reasons for varying the joint submission on penalty. DISPOSITION The prosecution and defence are jointly recommending the imposition of a penalty of a reduction in rank from First Class Constable to Second Class Constable. I find the demotion recommended is fair, measured and appropriate in the circumstances, taking O.P.S. & Constable P. Dawson May 2017 Page 13

14 into account all of the aggravating and mitigating factors associated with the misconduct, and with respect to the consistency of previous dispositions. Constable Dawson, please stand. You will be demoted in rank to Second Class Constable for a period of five (5) months in accordance with Section 85(1)(c) of the Police Services Act. Superintendent Chris Perkins Halton Regional Police Service 29 May 2017 O.P.S. & Constable P. Dawson May 2017 Page 14