Civil Liberties Wins Round In Ian Bush Case

Friday, September 14, 2007 03:18 PM

Prince George - The B.C. Civil Liberties Association has won a first round victory in Federal Court against the Attorney General of Canada over a complaint the BCCLA had filed shortly after Bush’s death..

The RCMP terminated the investigation of the BCCLA’s complaint in the summer of 2006 saying it wasn’t necesary given an ongoing criminal investigation and the availability of a Coroner’s Inquest which was held earlier this year in Houston, nearly 18 months after Ian Bush had died. The Chair of the CPC, Paul Kennedy, upheld the RCMP’s decision to terminate the investigation in September 2006 and launched a similar but different complaint.

In order to preserve the public’s right to make complaints against the RCMP and to ensure a timely review of police conduct involving in-custody deaths, the BCCLA brought a judicial review of Mr. Kennedy’s decision in the fall of 2006.The BCCLA believes that it, and any other member of the Canadian public, should have the right to lodge a complaint and have it investigated.

Murray Mollard, Executive Director of the BCCLA: "This is an important victory that will let us challenge Paul Kennedy’s decision to let the RCMP off the hook. Our goal is to keep Mr. Kennedy and the CPC’s feet to the fire in ensuring thorough and timely civilian oversight of police, especially in in-custody death cases. "

Evidence at the Coroner’s Inquest raised a variety of troubling questions about the competence of the RCMP investigation into Mr. Bush’s death. However, Coroner’s inquests are legally prohibited from finding responsibility for a death.

The BCCLA recently lodged 4 new complaints against police in BC as a result of civilian deaths in August, three of which involved RCMP detachments in Tofino, Fort St. John and Penticton. The BCCLA launches complaints in any police related death to ensure that there is civilian oversight into the death.

Executive Director Mollard: "Police investigating police when there is civilian death undermines public confidence and trust in the police. It is time a civilian agency investigate these cases. The process must be beyond reproach. We will continue to work to change the system."

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 03:18 PM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: Andyfreeze on September 14 2007 4:26 PM

Chalk up a small victory for the little guy!

Posted by: metalman on September 14 2007 4:41 PM

We gotta start somewhere. Thank goodness we have the means to do it. In many countries it is not even possible to investigate the state. I may do my share of grumbling about the establishment, but Canada is probably still one of the best places to live. Check that, CANADA is the best place to live.
metalman, a proud Canuck.

Posted by: owl on September 14 2007 4:56 PM

Great win! ... would love to listen in around the tables at Tim Horton's to see how the regular guy/gal feels about this.

Posted by: heidi1555 on September 14 2007 5:05 PM

Now we wait for Sept. 24 for the forum in Vancouver to come.
http://www.bccla.org/custody.htm
Mrs. Bush and Mrs. Young will have a chance to speak as well as lawyers Howard Rubin and Cameron Ward :)

Posted by: thereasonableman on September 15 2007 6:38 PM

There still needs to be much more change. I think the appointment of a civilian lawyer as head of the RCMP was the single biggest step towards that change.

Posted by: trollunderthebridge on September 15 2007 8:26 PM

Can someone please explain how civilians can investigate a police file? They do not have the training nor the experience. Would a plumber investigate a lawyer? The BCCLA believes that the police are at fault for every death that occurs during the course of their duty.

Posted by: heidi1555 on September 15 2007 8:51 PM

I'd like to add a word to your sentence troll. You said, "....police are at fault for every death....." I'd like to say, "...police are at fault for every questionable death...."

Posted by: trollunderthebridge on September 15 2007 10:24 PM

Someone out there has to protect society from these crazed druggies and drunks who think they can do whatever they want or attack whoever they want without any consequences.Maybe the friends and relatives of these people could have stepped up to the plate and helped to prevent their assinine behaviour before the tragedy took place.

Posted by: anniemartin on September 16 2007 9:42 AM

And maybe the police officer should have stayed calm and not hit a civilan with a loaded gun, maybe the officer should have had a better explaination as to how you shoot someone in the back when they are supposedly on top of you, maybe the officer should have stayed and given his statement when the incident happened instead of going on leave for 3 months before explaining himself, maybe the RCMP should have made him stay to explain himself instead of issuing a statement to the public blaming the victim before a full investigation. Sometimes the officer is at fault - they are human and it is not hard for everyday people to understand police work, most understand that decisions are made quickly. Let's not paint all officers with the same brush, there are a majority of really good men & women in the Force - but when they like us make a bad choice and someone dies, they like us must face justice in what ever form it takes.

Posted by: trollunderthebridge on September 16 2007 11:15 AM

Anniemartin, why don't you read this opinion of the story? It differs somewhat from yours but it is written by a person with experience in these matters.I know that you will disregard this because as we all know newspaper columnists are more credible than anyone investigating these matters

http://www.primetimecrime.com/contributing/2007/20070723cameron.htm

Posted by: heidi1555 on September 16 2007 12:01 PM

I read the prime time article you posted troll and why is it that everyone who defends Koester doesn't talk about the blood? They stay clear of that topic altogether. I want to know why and how it's possible that Koester wasn't covered in Ian's blood if he was underneath of him. Can somebody please answer that one for me please. I don't care if Koester was so traumatized and can't recall all that happened...that's not important here. Talk about the blood troll. I want to know what you think about the blood and only the blood. Well and the position of Ian's body slumped on couch undisturbed questioning how someone could've possibly been under him??? Please answer those two questions and get straight to the answer please as we all know already how well you are at bad talking.

Posted by: trollunderthebridge on September 16 2007 5:41 PM

Why don't you refer to Sgt Hignell's report on the incident? He makes it quite clear as to what likely occurred. Slemko was the one caught in the error on the stand. Not going to debate this over and over. Time to move on. And just because I don't agree with you does not mean that I am "Bad talking".

Posted by: heidi1555 on September 16 2007 7:13 PM

I do hope the time to move on comes soon. I kind of liked who I was before Dec. 19, 2004 happened. Then the call came and it broke me down. Just today actually for the first time ever I wondered if i'd be able to handle sitting across from Sheremetta at a table, grab his hands, look him in the eye and stumble over the words "I forgive you." I don't know what that means really but all I know is that holding all this anger inside is killing me. I still want to see justice done don't get me wrong as right is right and wrong is wrong but letting go of this anger would sure be nice. I'm sure my kids would benefit more if I could. Troll it's fair enough how you feel I just wanted some in depth thoughts from you and not some run around sentences....don't ask me why... I guess maybe it's because I get the biggest reaction from you so just want to know why you feel the way you do. Nosey I am I guess. I sure hope everyone is able to let go of the anger soon. Sure hope the necessary changes come even sooner.

Posted by: thereasonableman on September 16 2007 11:08 PM

"Can someone please explain how civilians can investigate a police file? "

The same way civilians investigate aircraft crashes, rocket failures, overpass collapses, financial and stock market scams, complicated fraud cases that cops don't understand, DNA samples....

You sound like you think it's really difficult for anyone else to comprehend.

How can you make the claim that "only police are talented enough to investigate police matters" after the "keystone cops" investigation that took place in the Ian Bush death ? The lack of proper evidence handling, lack of proper investigation, lack of continuity of evidence, contamination of the crime scene in several cases...and on and on.

The way they handled it, you'd think it was their first time at a crime scene. How did such competent people suddenly become so damn incompetent ?

Sure, you're entitled to your opinion. As a matter of fact, I think you're stuck with it, because nobody else wants it.

Remember, before they gave you a uniform, you were just a dumb civilian too. Now you're not a civilian anymore.

Posted by: trollunderthebridge on September 17 2007 6:43 AM

Obviously by your comments you do not understand either. The only civilians capable of investigating these matters are ex-police officers, not some average joe off the street such as yourself.By your comments it shows that you do not have a grasp of the situation either.Good thing you are not involved in any "Civilian oversight".

Posted by: pisspulper on September 17 2007 8:25 AM

Troll, it's very apparent that u have a vested interest in protecting the reputation of police officers. We need to understand here why police officers are better suited to investigate matters like this. Is it because writing the required quota of traffic tickets brings out their natural ability to understand forensics? Forensics doesn't always provide the exact nature of how an incident has occurred, sometimes only the most logical scenario. I think the only answer, and hopefully this would come out in a public inquiry, is that questionable fatal police shootings are investigated by experts from outside of Canada's police system. Be it civilian or non-civilian, any possible bias must be removed to permit a legitimate investigation. In the Bush inquest, a testifying officer was under attack by his colleagues, maybe of no importance, maybe it was. I'm not so certain these police experts were the most qualified, although others would say different. But how can anyone determine the quality of such experts? Civilians (homosapiens) surely are far to neanderthal-like to qualify what is expert status, so that leaves only ex-police officers. Now this where the ticket writing experience comes in handy.