Tribunal May Be Quashed

Tuesday, October 03, 2006 01:27 PM

The tribunal holding the fate of Cst. Justin Harris has retired to deliberate on a motion to quash the proceedings. It will render a decision at 9 am Wednesday.

Cst. Justin Harris is facing a disciplinary hearing linked to allegations he had sex with young prostitutes while stationed in Prince George. The allegations surfaced around the time Judge David Ramsay was convicted for his activities with teen aged street workers.

Harris' lawyer, Reg Harris, argued the force failed to follow the RCMP Act when it brought discreditable conduct charges against the officer. Harris says the force had one year from the time the officer, and the alleged behaviour was identified, and the time he received notice.

Counsel for the RCMP, Brian Radford, said the evidence shows the force did not have sufficient cause to send notice to Cst. Harris before it did; he cited the evidence of Assistant Commissioner Gary Bass to support his position.

Earlier Sgt. Armand Teitz, of the RCMP's Professional Standards Unit testified the RCMP struck Task Force "E-Prevail" to follow the leads and pursue the statements from the Judge Ramsay case.

Teitz said he interviewed a number of Prince George sex trade workers.

One said "she had sex with Cst. Harris in exchange for money when she was in the age range of approx 13 to 15 years of age."

"She stated on one occasion Cst. Harris asked her to have sex with him and there was an agreement of $60 for a blow job, or oral sex."

"She relayed another incident in which Cst. Harris paid CC for oral sex and he asked that they remove the condom he was wearing and when she refused he got angry and struck her in the face."

"KC had sex with Cst. Harris on at least two occasions. On both occasions he was drunk and angry. She considered him to be a bad date. She was 16 years old at the time. He knew her, and he knew how old she was."

Outside the hearing, Sgt. Teitz said the revelations shocked him.

Some of the Prince George sex trade workers are expected to testify Wednesday if the tribunal refuses Cst. Harris' request to quash the hearing.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Tuesday, October 03, 2006 01:27 PM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: ammonra on October 3 2006 2:48 PM

I am a little confused here. If there is sufficient evidence to discipline him for an offence involving underage girls, how come there is not enough evidence to lay charges in a court? I woud have thought the two criteria were pretty much the same.

Posted by: thereasonableman on October 3 2006 7:43 PM

Does it really matter ?
Cops investigating cops, cops defending cops, cops trying cops, how much funnier can it get ?

I want to find a job where my buddies / co-workers are the judge and jury when I stride bravely way over the line, with no fear of consequence.

I fully expect the proceedings will be quashed. They took today to raise the reason for quashing it, let us chew on the idea over night and begin to accept that it will probably be the case, and get used to the idea. Tomorrow, they will announce the formal quashing of the proceedings, justifying it by way of the reasons above, and we will already be expecting it to be so, thus it will not be so shocking.

I went to post-secondary school with Reg Harris and I must say I'm disappointed to see a brilliant career in policing turned into a career of defending allegedly-dirty cops, but that's his bed. I still stand up for the same things I did back then. That's why I don't fit into that crowd no more. Some people lose their sense of self or who they are along the way, methinks.
It's a pretty dirty road to drive and you have to work extra hard at keeping yourself clean, or be absorbed by the dirt.

Anyhow, expect this will be another case tossed in Tijuana.

Posted by: Dog Creek on October 3 2006 7:46 PM

Sad, yet not surprising. I'm disheartened to see children being referred to as sex trade workers which implies legal age of consent. Children who are sexually exploited and physically abused are victims, not workers.

Posted by: thereasonableman on October 3 2006 8:20 PM

Apparently, they are a service industry according to our local authorities.

By the way, it is very common in the justice business for authorities to sit on things too long when they cannot innocently botch the investigation without culpability, some other way. The last resort is time it out.

Here's the pre-emptive excuse for the delays in case you missed it:

"Busson said she forwarded the investigation to the RCMP�s Anti-Corruption Unit; somehow there had been some "miscommunication " over who was following up."
(this either makes them look totally incompetent or it is a polite way of saying they sat on it)

There was another comment by Judy Thomas somewhere that said she began the investigation, but handed it off because she wasn't comfortable investigating it because they had worked together. (that says a lot too)
Whose job is it to protect people anyway ?

BTW, where are the rest of the commentators ?
Are you guys boycotting this site ?

Or are you just so disgusted at things, that you are not bothering to participate at all any more ?

Posted by: Chester on October 3 2006 8:44 PM

That about sums it up. Justice is not being served. Drag things out. Find loop holes. Or, just bungle things to the point that things will never fly anyway. Pretty discouraging. Chester

Posted by: ammonra on October 3 2006 8:48 PM

Yes, I think it does matter. I think that impartial application of the law is important, and if a judge can be jailed for doing something then a police officer who may have done preetty much the same should also be jailed.

Posted by: Don Mackenzie on October 4 2006 10:32 AM

This is the most Anti Police Form in the Nation.

These Hookers, SAY a police officer had sex with them..Think folks..These women could not tell the truth if their lives depended on it. they are Low lifes, They lie, cheat, steal, do drugs, sell their bodys...Who in the hell would believe any thing they say.

Posted by: thereasonableman on October 4 2006 11:54 AM

It's not anti-police Don, it's angry cutting criticism, trying to get the whole establishment to pull up their socks and live up to the standards they proclaim to be following. This isn't about get the cops or bash the cops, it's about trying to rein in people who are dizzy on power and running way too far over the line with it.

When "congratulations on a job well done" is the order of the day, that will be the comment given.

Your comments about low lifes, etc....remember that these are/were somebody's kids. Just because they are not yours, doesn't mean they are human trash.

Your comments and your blind support simply validate the comments made by others about how the police establishment views other people, especially street children who are being used as sex toys.

The fact that you view these people so poorly and hold the police so highly, makes it even more probable and believable that it really happened.

All you are doing in your cheerleading is dosing us with the views and attitudes that you probably got from the "cop club". It just gives us an insight into the thinking of the police.

You are doing more harm than good if you need to know, and you are not convincing anybody of anything, except that the police view themselves as untouchable and entitled to take advantage of people they view as worthless.

And.....They are only as believable as you Don.

Posted by: ammonra on October 4 2006 12:15 PM

It is now official, the cop got off on a technicality. Next time a druggie gets off on a technicality and the police complain, lets all remember that some of them have no compunction snuffling at the same trough when to their advantage.

To Don, making a living letting your body be used as a pin cushion has absolutely nothing to do with whether you tell the truth. The mouth is connected to the brain, not the vagina. It's the Johns who have their brains lower down!