IN THE MATTER OF ONTARIO REGULATION 123/98 MADE UNDER THE POLICE SERVICES ACT, R.S.O. 1990, C.P.15 AND AMENDMENTS THERETO; AND IN THE MATTER OF

Transcription

1 IN THE MATTER OF ONTARIO REGULATION 123/98 MADE UNDER THE POLICE SERVICES ACT, R.S.O. 1990, C.P.15 AND AMENDMENTS THERETO; AND IN THE MATTER OF POLICE CONSTABLE PATRICK MURPHY AND THE THUNDER BAY POLICE SERVICE APPEARANCES Mr. Greg Stephenson President Thunder Bay Police Service - for Constable Patrick Murphy Ms. Holly Walbourne Legal Counsel - for the Thunder Bay Police Service BEFORE: Superintendent (retired) Robert J. Fitches Reasons released electronically: August 23 rd, 2015 REASONS FOR DECISION 1 P a g e

2 Background These proceedings were commenced by way of a Notice of Hearing dated June 15 th, 2015, appropriately served upon Constable Patrick Murphy. The Notice of Hearing alleges sixteen (16) counts of misconduct committed by Constable Murphy between September 6 th, 2014 and November 2 nd, After discussions between the Thunder Bay Police Association and the Prosecutor, there were eleven (11) counts proceeded with and Constable Murphy agreed to a set of facts and entered a guilty plea to the allegations as contained in the Agreed Statement of Facts. Prior to the hearing, the Thunder Bay Police Association and the Thunder Bay Police Service agreed to a disposition of forfeiture of 160 hours pay. Within these reasons I intend to generally summarize the reasons put forth for the disposition and will offer the tribunal s points of view in this regard as well. Prior to adjourning these matters on July 24 th, 2015, I confirmed that the tribunal was willing to accept the disposition as agreed by the parties. I did so after having had the benefit of brief submissions by the prosecutor and the officer s Association representative. Agreed Statement of Facts Constable Pat Murphy is, and was at all material times, a member of the Thunder Bay Police Service. For purposes of clarity the "assignment"/"unit" given to each officer when placed on shift represents their assigned zone, the shift in the day, the unit number in the area and whether it was day or night. For example, assignment 224D would translate into Zone 2, 2" shift in the day and that unit was the 4' one in the area. Constable Murphy worked solely in Zone 2, which represents the North core of the city of Thunder Bay. On one occasion Constable Murphy was working in Murillo, Ontario. The assigned Patrol Zone 666 is an area policed by the City of Thunder Bay Police Service pursuant to an agreement with the adjoining municipality of Oliver Paipoonge. Constable Murphy was not asked to be outside of his zone, on any occasion, for any policing purpose. The business premise of WPRS is near the far southern end of the City of Thunder Bay, well outside of Zone 2. It is known that Constable Murphy has worked for WPRS, in an off duty status, as a Construction Manager. Constable Murphy's residence is on SBR, outside of the jurisdiction of Thunder Bay, well north of the city and well outside of Zone 2, in the Municipality of Shuniah. 2 P a g e

3 Count #1 0n or about Saturday September 6 th, 2014, Constable Murphy was on duty as a member of the Police Service. His shift was from 7:30 to 19:30 and his car number was 189 and his assignment was 224D. While on duty Constable Murphy attended at Gore Street West. This location is known to be the business of WPRS. Constable Murphy stayed at this location from approximately 10:13 until approximately 10:26. Gore Street is in the far southern part of the City of Thunder Bay, well outside of the assigned zone. The WPRS business is approximately 9.8 driving kilometres away from the boundary of Zone 2. From approximately 10:29 until approximately 10:53 Constable Murphy made numerous stops in his police vehicle, with no record of policing business. Constable Murphy returned to Gore Street West at 10:53, and stayed until approximately 11:00. From approximately 11:06 until 12:02 Constable Murphy made various stops before returning to WPRS and placing himself on "Code 7" (Meal Break) at 11:57. Constable Murphy remained at WPRS for approximately 86 minutes before marking himself as available at 13:15. Count #2 (originally Count #4) 0n or about Sunday September 7th, 2014, Constable Murphy was on duty and worked from 07:30 hours to 19:30. His car number was 191 and his assignment was 224D. At 13:07 Constable Murphy's police vehicle was stopped at 629 Sibley Drive in Thunder Bay. This location is the parking lot of Tim Horton's and Montana's Restaurants. At 13:08 his Unit, 224D, was dispatched, and marked en route to a Weapons in Progress call at Belrose and Marlwood Streets. Constable Murphy answered the radio when called, and was aware of the dispatch to this Priority 1 call, requiring a 2 officer response. At 1309, Unit 701D advised on the air that he would also attend the call. At 13:19, Unit 701D provided an update about witness accounts of shots fired one hour earlier, in the area of Belrose and John Streets. At 13:20 Unit 111D advised that he was also in the area of the call. At 13:28:13, Unit 111D cleared himself from the call. At 13:28:21, eight seconds after Unit 111D cleared from the call, Constable Murphy showed himself available for calls, by advising that Unit 224 was "10-8" (cleared of all other calls). However, Constable 3 P a g e

4 Murphy remained in the Tim Horton's/Montana's parking lot, without moving, for the entire duration of the call. At 13:29, he left the Tim Horton's parking lot to drive to the WPRS Zone where he remained for approximately 80 minutes. Count #3 (originally Count #7) On or about Wednesday September 24 th, 2014 and Thursday September 25`1', 2014, Constable Murphy worked from 18:30 hours to 06:30. His car number was 182 and his assignment was 222N. At 01:39 hours, Constable Murphy stopped at the WPRS Zone. During this time he was marked available for calls. At approximately 01:54, Constable Murphy's Unit (222N) and Unit 111N were dispatched, and marked en route to a Priority 1 call at a Banning Street residence in the downtown north core, in Zone 2. At approximately 01:55, Constable Murphy acknowledged the call on the radio, "10-4". At 02:02, Unit 111N booked off at the call. At about the same time, Unit 222N departed the WPRS, in the south end of the city. At 02:03, Constable Murphy advised that he was "still 2 minutes away". However, at 02:04, he was only at the intersection of East Brock Street and Tarbutt Street in the south end of the City. This is approximately 9.1 to 9.3 kilometres away from the site of Banning Street, and approximately minutes away by vehicle (at the posted speed limit). Constable Murphy's police vehicle reached speeds of 135 km/h en route to the call in a 60 lcm/h zone. At 02:08 Unit 111N advised that he had one in custody. Constable Murphy booked off at the site of Banning Street at approximately 02:11. Shortly thereafter he followed the arresting officer, Unit 111N to the police station for booking. This call was Priority 1 as the call was from a mother who was also on the phone with her daughter. The mother had advised that she feared that her daughter was hiding in a closet from her boyfriend, as what was going on in the house was "worse than" fighting. After attending the police station with Unit 111N, at 02:57 Constable Murphy's police vehicle departed and re-attended the WPRS zone at 03:03, where the vehicle remained without moving until 06:13. 4 P a g e

5 Count #4 (originally Count #8) On or about Thursday September 25' to Friday September 26 1 '2014, Constable Murphy worked from 18:30 hours to 06:30. His car number was 214 and his assignment was 666N. While on duty in Murillo, Ontario Constable Murphy left the jurisdiction and his assigned zone without permission, to attend at WPRS on Gore Street at approximately 03:15. Constable Murphy stayed at the WPRS location until approximately 06:55. The vehicle then traveled at a high rate of speed, with a peak speed of 133km/hr in a 90km/h zone from WPRS, back to Oliver Road in Murillo. Count #5 (originally Count #9) On or about Tuesday September 30t h, 2014, Constable Murphy worked from 06:30 hours to 15:00. His car number was 194 and his assignment was 222D. While on duty Constable Murphy left his assigned zone and attended at the WPRS property on Gore Street at approximately 07:31. At 07:32, Unit 222D was dispatched to a Priority 1 call at McDonald's Restaurant on Memorial Avenue in Thunder Bay. Constable Murphy acknowledged receipt of the call by stating "10-4". The call related to a male blocking the drive through window, with a manager inside claiming he had been assaulted. This call required 2 officers to attend. Unit 701D responded, and advised he had arrived at McDonald's at 07:39. Approximately 11 minutes later Unit 701D advised that he had one person in custody, and was "10-19" (returning to the station). After the call was handled by Unit 701D, Constable Murphy departed from WPRS advising that he was returning to the station to get his partner. 5 Constable Murphy was dispatched to the call at approximately 07:32 but did not leave WPRS until approximately 20 minutes after the dispatch. 5 P a g e

6 Count #6 (originally Count #10) On or about Wednesday October P t, 2014, Constable Murphy worked from 06:30 hours to 18:30. His car number was 180 and his assignment was 222D. While on duty, Constable Murphy left your assigned Patrol Zone and attended at WPRS at approximately 07:32. At approximately 07:42 Constable Murphy and another unit, 221D, were dispatched to an alarm at Bishop Gallagher School at 159 Clayte Street in the north end of Thunder Bay. This was a Priority 2 call requiring 2 officers to attend. Constable Murphy acknowledged the call, indicating "10-4". Unit 221D booked off at the call at 07:54. By 07:56, Unit 221D advised that school staff was on site, and that the alarm was false. Shortly thereafter, Constable Murphy advised that he was returning to station for his partner. Constable Murphy was then marked out of service, returning to the station at approximately 07:57. However, he did not depart the WPRS location until approximately 08:15. The distance from the WPRS Zone to the call location on Clayte Street was approximately 15.3 to 15.5 kilometres, or approximately minutes by vehicle (at the posted speed limit). Count #7 (originally Count #11) On or about Wednesday October 9 th 2014, Constable Murphy worked from 06:30 hours to 18:30. His car number was 191 and his assignment was 223D. At approximately 07:20, Constable Murphy's vehicle stopped at the WPRS Zone. At approximately 08:16, Constable Murphy and Unit 883D were dispatched to an Alarm at 600 North Cumberland Street, the Parks and Recreation "Gibson Yard" premise. Constable Murphy indicated "10-4", after inquiring where the alarm was. This was a Priority 2 call, requiring a 2 officer response. At approximately 08:21, the single officer Unit 883D booked off at the call, and advised that a city vehicle was there, and the gate was open. At approximately 08:25, Unit 883D advised the alarm was set off in error, and to cancel Constable Murphy's unit. During this time, Constable Murphy remained stopped at the WPRS Zone from 07:20 to 08:39 (1 hour and 19 minutes) without ever attempting to attend the call. 6 P a g e

7 The distance from WPRS to the call site, Gibson Yard, is approximately kilometres. Travel time by vehicle is estimated at 19 minutes (at the posted speed limit). Count #8 (originally Count #12) On or about Wednesday October 9 th, 2014, Constable Murphy was on duty, working a shift from 06:30 hours to 18:30. His car number was 191 and his assignment was 223D. At 15:00, Constable Murphy was dispatched to a residential address on Sequoia Street in the north end of Thunder Bay. At approximately 15:02, he was asked if he copied the call, whereupon he asked that the address be provided again. Once provided, Constable Murphy acknowledged "10-4". This was a single officer call. The complainant had tried to cancel the call. However, as it was a domestic occurrence, it required that police attend personally to verify the safety of the parties. At approximately 15:05, Constable Murphy drove by the residence without stopping. The approximate speed of the vehicle when it drove by was kph. After driving by the residence, Constable Murphy proceeded to 853 Red River Road, stopping there at approximately 15:08. This location is a McDonald's Restaurant parking lot. The vehicle remained here until approximately15:28. At that time, Constable Murphy advised that communications could "Show me 10-8 (available), there is no answer at the door wait for a call back". Count #9 (originally Count #14) On or about Friday October 24 th 2014, Constable Murphy was on duty and worked a shift from 06:30 hours to 18:30. His car number was 180 and his assignment was 222D. At 13:44, Constable Murphy's vehicle was stopped at Police Headquarters, and at 13:56, his unit was marked "available" to take calls. At approximately 14:00 his Unit (222D) and Unit 112D were dispatched to a residential alarm on Summit Avenue in north Thunder Bay. This is a Priority 2 call requiring a 2 officer response. Constable Murphy acknowledged the dispatch by "10-4". 7 P a g e

8 Unit 111D was next dispatched in place of Unit 112 D, who was coming from the Courthouse. Unit 112D was cancelled. At approximately 14:08, Unit 111D booked off at the call. By 14:12, Unit 111D had cleared the call as a false alarm, whereupon Constable Murphy advised "Triple " indicating your availability for calls. Constable Murphy did not leave the Police Headquarters until 14:54, whereupon he travelled to the WPRS Zone. Constable Murphy was stopped at the police station when dispatched, and did not depart until approximately 42 minutes after the call was cleared by Unit 111D. Count #10 (originally count #15) On or about Sunday November 2', 2014 Constable Murphy was on duty and worked a shift from 6:30 hours to 18:30. His car number was 184 and his assignment was 221D, with partner B201. At 10:00, Constable Murphy was marked off at the Police Headquarters for a search. At approximately 10:16, Constable Murphy's partner B201 was given information about a call. B201 advised communications that Constable Murphy had "run out to do something real quick" while B201 was conducting the search. B201 advised communication that she would get ahold of Constable Murphy. At 10:17, Unit 221D was dispatched to a residential address on Cherry Lane for a domestic disturbance in progress. The call for service was an abandoned 911 call which on call back showed as a domestic disturbance. This was a Priority 1 call, requiring a two officer response. Constable Murphy's partner B201 advised communications that he had left to "take care of something", and obtained the call details. At approximately 10:19, vehicle (184), driven by Constable Murphy stopped at his residence in the M of S. The location is approximately 20.3 diving kilometres from Zone 2 and approximately 13.2 driving kilometres outside the boundary of the City of Thunder Bay. At approximately 10:25, Constable Murphy departed from his residence. At approximately 10:27, Officer B201 advised that Unit 221D had cleared from the station. She (officer B201) was advised that the disturbance was between a female and her upset boyfriend. She (officer B201) was also advised that the boyfriend had been physical in the past, and that a child was present. 8 P a g e

9 At approximately 10:31, officer B201 advised that she was off at the call, and Unit 221D (only officer B201) was marked as arrived at the address on Cherry Lane. At approximately 10:32, officer B201 requested that communications call the complainant and have her come to the door, as a child had tried to come to the door and had been dragged away. At approximately 10:33 Vehicle 184, driven by Constable Murphy, reached a peak speed of 171 km/h in a 90 km/h zone while driving back to Thunder Bay towards the scene of the call. At approximately 10:35, officer B201 advised that she was inside the residence. Shortly thereafter, she advised that she was fine, and that "it's settled down now." At 10:38, Constable Murphy arrived at the call location on Cherry Lane. At 10:47, upon a communications check, Constable Murphy advised that "we got one in custody". Count #11 (originally count #16) On or about Saturday, September 6, 2014, Constable Murphy was on duty and worked from 07:30 hours to 19:30. His car number was 189 and his assignment was 224D. At 15:59, Constable Murphy was stopped at 645 Sibley Drive which is the parking lot of Montana's / Tim Horton's. Approximately 7 minutes later, his unit 224D was dispatched with 332D to an abandoned 911 call from Wal-Mart at 777 Memorial Avenue. This is a priority 1 call requiring a 2 officer response. Both units 224D and 332D were single officer units. Constable Murphy acknowledged the call from Communications stating "10-4." Approximately 13 minutes later, at 16:19, 332D cleared the call after attending Wal Mart. Constable Murphy was marked available at 16:21 hours after Communications verified that he was aware of 332D clearing the call. Constable Murphy remained at 645 Sibley Drive for an additional 38 minutes after he was available for a total stop time of approximately 60 minutes. 9 P a g e

10 Process Due to the length of and the amount of detail contained in the Agreed Statement of Facts, the document was tendered as an exhibit but was not read into the record. Constable Murphy confirmed that he was aware of and agreed to all elements within the Agreed Statement of Facts and it was based upon those facts that he was pleading guilty. Constable Murphy s plea was accepted and based upon that plea, as well as the Agreed to Statement of Facts, he was found GUILTY of all counts that were itemized in the Agreed Statement of Facts. The last remaining issue with which the tribunal was asked to deal was the issue of disposition. Agreement on Disposition The Thunder Bay Police Service and Constable Murphy agreed upon a disposition of the forfeiture of 160 hours pay. It was the tribunal s view that the disposition agreed to by the parties could be viewed as somewhat on the low side of the range of penalties one might expect to see in matters such as these. Consequently, both sides were asked if they could provide submissions that might assist the tribunal in assessing the appropriateness of the disposition being proposed. Submissions as to Disposition At the outset, Ms. Walbourne advised the tribunal that there was an agreement between the parties that a forfeiture of 160 hours pay was an appropriate disposition. In arriving at this decision, Ms. Walbourne advised me that she had gone through the disposition principles, specifically aggravating and mitigating factors. When researching the case law, it was submitted that as is often the case, there was little available that was specifically on point. It was however suggested that the cases did provide some guidance on whether or not the disposition ought to be accepted by the tribunal. It was submitted that Constable Murphy was a long-serving member of the Thunder Bay Police Service who has no disciplinary record. He is married with two grown children. This is a first offence, Constable Murphy has demonstrated remorse and he understands the seriousness of the misconduct he has pled guilty to having committed. In addition to the forfeiture of 160 hours pay, Constable Murphy is also forfeiting his municipal policing allowance for a period of one year. 10 P a g e

11 A number of letters of support were submitted to assist me at assessing Constable Murphy s character and career potential 1. One of the letters observed that Constable Murphy was able to maintain a positive attitude while under the pressure of facing these allegations of misconduct. It was suggested that the disposition being proposed reflects that the police service wants to restore any lost faith in the organization within the community. I was informed that Constable Murphy has suggested that he wishes to get a fresh start beginning with the resolution of these discipline matters. The disposition being proposed carries with it significant financial implications. In addition to the obvious impacts on Constable Murphy s salary, he has also agreed to forfeiting his municipal policing allowance for one year. When it was suggested that the disposition agreed to by the parties appeared to be somewhat lower than might be expected, Mrs. Walbourne made further submissions to expand upon the reasoning behind the agreement. It was suggested that when researching the case law, there is a shortage of pertinent cases to rely upon. For example the misconduct in Betts and Ontario Provincial Police 2 is much more serious than in the matters presently before the tribunal, but Betts is based on few counts. In these matters, there has been no denial of guilt and Constable Murphy has shown a willingness to sit down and admit responsibility at the first opportunity. He has not required the police service to engage in a lengthy and costly hearing. These are all significant mitigating factors that must be considered in arriving at an appropriate disposition. The disposition that has been agreed upon by the parties is the highest available without moving into demotion or dismissal. The level of forfeiture is significant and ought to have a deterrent effect upon Constable Murphy as well as other members of the police service. There was consensus that Constable Murphy is an excellent candidate for rehabilitation and reform and the parties are hopeful that he will be able to put this behind him and that the service will not have to deal with anything of this nature in the future. It was suggested that the tribunal could look upon these allegations of misconduct as one (large) infraction with 11 aspects. 1 There was an issue raised regarding the letters, which were submitted without signature. Ms. Walbourne asked that these letters be resubmitted with appropriate signatures. It was my requirement that the letters be signed as requested and that in the interim I would proceed as though those signatures had been received. 2 Betts and O.P.P., OCCPS, June 19 th, P a g e

12 Discussion Let me begin by stating that at first blush, the disposition that has been agreed to seems somewhat lower than might have been expected, given the protracted nature of the misconduct. Notwithstanding this view, however, I also need to make it clear that although perhaps lower within a range that I might have initially expected, it is nevertheless within the range of acceptable dispositions for misconduct of the nature illustrated within the Notice of Hearing and Agree to Facts. When looking at the case law that provided to assist me in these reasons, I must agree with Ms. Walbourne that the specific facts of previous cases rarely line up on all fours with the facts before me. While there will be some similarities, the cases are not sufficiently analogous to provide strong direction. This is not unusual; in fact it is what one might expect. While it has been suggested by various courts and other oversight entities that consistency is the hallmark of fairness, consistency nonetheless remains a supremely elusive prey. We can try to be consistent, but it is seldom entirely achievable. When considering the somewhat lenient nature of the disposition relative to the sheer number of incidents referenced within the Agree Statement of Fact, I need to remain mindful of the relative seriousness of the incidents when compared to other incidents in other cases. In this regard, I am reminded of Guenette and Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service 3. In that matter, the officer had been convicted of stealing a large amount of money from the bank account of a young man who had been operating an ATM machine beside Constable Guenette s ATM and who had left his bank card in the machine. Once this person had left the ATM kiosk, Constable Guenette, while on duty and in uniform, withdrew money from the individual s bank account. Unfortunately for the officer, there was high quality video evidence available to the prosecutor. It was a sad spectacle indeed seeing a uniformed police officer steal from a member of his community. The tribunal dismissed Constable Guenette, citing, among other things, the seriousness of the misconduct, the conflict between his actions and the sworn duties of a police officer and the lack of evidence to suggest a strong rehabilitative potential. At appeal, the officer was permitted to provide additional evidence, in the form of letters of support from within the police service and community. The Commission, citing this additional evidence, varied the penalty from dismissal to demotion. The additional evidence adduced at this appeal has revealed strong support for Constable Guenette from both inside and outside the Service. The character references indicate that Constable Guenette was well regarded by his peers and especially by the people with whom he came in contact on his tours of duty in 3 Guenette and Ottawa Carleton Regional Police Service, July 21, 1998, O.C.C.P.S. 12 P a g e

13 the small community of Westboro. The letters from people in that area indicated that, although they do not condone his actions, they considered his presence in that community to be very valuable, and certainly hoped to see him return to that area as the community police officer. Counsel for the Respondent has asked that no great weight be given to these letters, as the writers were not subject to cross-examination. The Commission is not bound by the strict rules of evidence developed for use by the court system. Hearsay is prima facie admissible in these proceedings, and appropriate weight may be assigned to these letters providing they are reasonably capable of belief. Many of these letters came from members of the community who had contact with Constable Guenette in the course of his duties. Others were written by owners and operators of businesses, victims of crime and domestic disputes, community development personnel, neighbours and sports teammates. We do not find that the letters written were motivated by the possibility of personal gain. These character references were not tendered by family members or close friends but from a variety of sources. Further, while recognizing the seriousness of the Appellant s conduct, the letters offered unmitigated support without platitudes and they possessed an air of veracity. We find that the letters are capable of belief. 4 In my accepting the disposition in the matters now before me, I lean rather heavily on Guenette in accepting the forfeiture rather than preferring demotion; which is the only other disposition available, short of dismissal. The letters of support, the employment history, the complete lack of previous disciplinary issues, Constable Murphy s acceptance of responsibility and his guilty plea have led me to conclude that forfeiture is appropriate, even when considering the number of transgressions cited in the Statement of Facts. In Guenette, the Commission observed as follows: Given his disciplinary history, the singular nature of this event and the character references provided, we find it unlikely that there will be a repetition of a similar offence by Constable Guenette. This is consistent with the findings of the Hearing Officer that there was no need to give undue considerations to either general or specific deterrence. We find that even in light of the commendations, Constable Guenette s conduct was highly disreputable and warrants significant punishment. Considering his ability to reform and the fact that the damage to the Service, although significant, is not irreparable and considering the previous decisions by the Commission dealing with similar offences, we will allow the appeal and vary the penalty to a 4 Ibid. 13 P a g e

14 demotion to third class constable 5. So while Constable Guenette was found to have stolen from a member the community he is sworn to serve and protect - an activity that is utterly contrary to what one might quite reasonably believe the community expects of its police officers - his employment history, letters of support and other factors led the Commission to vary his penalty from dismissal to demotion. In the matters now before me, while Constable Murphy s conduct has been awful, the damage to the reputation of the police service is certainly less than it would have been if Constable Murphy had taken part in larcenous activities such as those committed by Constable Guenette. Constable Murphy s decisions after having been accused of this misconduct also weigh heavily upon my mind when deciding upon the appropriateness of the penalty. Constable Murphy has admitted to the wrongdoing and pled guilty at the first reasonable opportunity. In matters such as these, it is not uncommon to observe that an officer s post-event conduct can be seen to illustrate the strength of his or her character; particularly when decisions are made relative to disclosing to investigators, whether or not to plead guilty and/or admit to wrongdoing in a timely and fulsome fashion. One sterling example of such post event conduct is found within Williams and Ontario Provincial Police 6. In that matter, the officer was present when an indecent assault took place and did nothing to prevent it. When the matter was being investigated, Williams failed to admit to his presence when the assault occurred and misled the investigators in the process. In its Reasons for Decision on his appeal against his dismissal, the Commission observed that Williams conduct after the events took place illustrated a fundamental character flaw that was inconsistent with the roles and responsibilities of a police officer. So the officer s decisions after the fact were determinative of the eventual disposition wherein the Commission upheld the officer s dismissal. In the matters now before me, Constable Murphy s decisions provide strong mitigation in that they seem to illustrate a potential for rehabilitation and reform. Furthermore, his decisions after the fact seem to show that the officer acknowledged his wrongdoing and took responsibility for his actions almost immediately. From time to time when dealing with dispositions such as this, I am presented with the actual financial implications of a demotion or forfeiture, i.e. the actual financial cost of such a disposition. Although not in possession of the pay scale for the Thunder Bay Police Service, based upon common knowledge of police officers pay scales across the Province, it is not unreasonable to suggest that Constable Murphy will be losing several 5 Ibid. 6 Williams and Ontario Provincial Police (1995), 2 O.P.R P a g e

15 thousand dollars as a result of the forfeiture. This is not a trifling amount; and this figure does not take into account the forfeiture of his Municipal Policing Allowance. I am quite comfortable in confirming the disposition that was agreed upon by the parties; the forfeiture of one hundred and sixty (160) hours pay. In my view it adequately addresses the disposition considerations that have evolved over the past several years and appropriately recognizes the officer s employment history, reputation within the community and among his peers and his obvious willingness to admit to his wrongdoings immediately. In my view it also recognizes the seriousness of his misconduct, the protracted nature of the misconduct and the potential for having placed himself, other officers and members of the community in some dangerous situations unnecessarily. Notwithstanding my acceptance of the agreed disposition, I would strongly suggest that should Constable Murphy either continue in this course of action, or resume conduct that is of a similar character, a tribunal will not have great difficulty justifiably imposing a disposition of demotion or dismissal. Disposition Constable Pat Murphy is hereby ordered to forfeit one hundred and sixty (160) hours pay. August 23, 2015 Robert J. Fitches Superintendent (ret d.) Hearing Officer Date 15 P a g e