In my memory, last week saw the first ever public release of a report by the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) regarding an investigation into the use of force by police. It chronicled the facts and accounts through which SIU made their decision concerning the actions of Toronto Police Service in the shooting death of Andrew Loku. It was a controversial decision by the Ministry of Attorney General no doubt, and one that came following the highly-publicized meeting between Premier Kathleen Wynne and Black Lives Matter (BLM) protestors outside Toronto Police Headquarters.
But was it the wrong decision to release the report? Is providing even more transparency to the public surrounding investigations into police behavior ever a bad thing? It’s important to note that report was redacted to protect subject officer and police/civilian witness names and identifying information, which was quite proper. Those involved have experienced enough emotion, during the actual event and through the lengthy investigation that followed.
The SIU was formed in 1990 and has had to work through a variety of challenges as it evolved since those early days in terms of its mandate, investigative competence and levels of cooperation by police. It is now generally accepted by Ontario police leaders and officers as being investigatively proficient and effectively led.
The present SIU Director, veteran criminal prosecutor Tony Laparco, has a wealth of experience and in my view will always make what he believes is the right decision in a given situation. Like a number of Directors before him, he will not be influenced by community, family, special interest group or police pressure as he makes his critical decisions.
Ontario truly led the charge on independent oversight into police use of force through the formation of the SIU. Prior to that, police investigated police. In the years immediately prior to the SIU’s genesis, an outside police service was normally called in to conduct such investigations. The OPP often investigated citizen deaths caused by municipal police services and at times vice-versa. Even though charges were laid in a number of those cases, the general perception of the public – particularly those close to the individual having been injured or killed, was that the police were protecting one another, regardless of what shoulder-flash they wore.
Comparatively, we have witnessed the fallout from what appears to be a lack of independence and transparency in like investigations in some U.S. jurisdictions. The investigation around the police killing of teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson Missouri in August 2014, is a classic example of how a lack of clarity and confidence can further erode or completely destroy public trust in justice system officials.
In that case, what may have been a justified use of deadly force by police became a lightning rod for public concern and violent protests. Although a variety of historical factors may have led to the deterioration of community trust in police there, a competent, open and independent investigation into Brown’s death may have mitigated the incendiary reaction to the lack of charges.
Thankfully, that isn’t our environment in Ontario. However, one side of the equation will almost always be disappointed in the outcome of a SIU investigation. Initially the police will often feel let down by the system when an officer is charged – at the very least until they hear the facts as presented during the subsequent trial. The family, friends and community of a citizen that is seriously injured or killed as a result of their interaction with police is most often upset when the officer is not charged, believing that the system has unjustly sided with police. They often cite their honest belief that the victim was a good person; was suffering from mental health issues; and/or was in the process of “turning his (or her) life around”.
Part or all of that belief may well be true, but police have no option but to react to the amount of force used by the individual they face. In the case of a suspect armed with a knife, a club – or a hammer, as in the Loku situation, they can sometimes take a position of cover; keep obstacles between them and the suspect; talk; negotiate; de-escalate; and use less-lethal weapons if available. But at other times they can’t.
(See OP-ED: The growing need for Tasers in Toronto, February 2, 2016)
Unfortunately, all the de-escalation training and techniques in the world won’t always be able to prevent the use of deadly force by police while backed into a corner and faced with an assaultive suspect that is armed with a weapon. In those awful situations, somebody is going to get hurt or die. Police officers don’t come to work wanting to hurt or kill anyone, but they certainly deserve to go home safely to their families at the end of the day.
When police use force that seriously injures or kills a member of the public, SIU will be called in to investigate the facts and determine whether or not police committed a criminal act. We have to then rely on the expertise of the investigators, the leadership of the Director and due process from there. We also have to accept their findings, whether we like them or not.
Perhaps now is the time for SIU to routinely publish more details of the occurrence, the evidence and the rationale for their decision-making, as they eventually did in the Loku case. Officer identifiers must always be protected unless criminal charges are laid against them, but if more transparency around the investigative findings will improve the public perception of and confidence in the SIU process, I see that as a good thing.
Chris Lewis served as Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police from 2010 until he retired in 2014. He can be seen regularly on CTV and CP24 giving his opinion as a public safety analyst.
