Lack of Supervision a Critical Deficiency in RCMP 1

Posted by admin - February 11th, 2010

Another significant blow to the image of the RCMP in British Columbia occurred recently, upon the revelation that a valued member of the Integrated Homicide Investigation Team (IHIT) had maintained an inappropriate romantic relationship with the ex-girlfriend of a murdered gangster. The woman is a witness in the gangland-style execution case referred to as the “Surrey Six”. Sergeant Derek Brassington, a 14 year member with the Force, had enjoyed an impeccable reputation as a driven, relentless investigator with a bright future ahead of him. Unlike the majority of RCMP gaffes exposed in the media of late, this is not a direct result of that organization’s undeniable leadership vacuum.

In terms of impact upon the prosecution of the persons charged with these slayings, there will be no discernible difference in the judicial outcome. Convictions will almost certainly result. One source of this relief is the fact that the witness was not a source of information which formed the basis for any legal applications such as search warrants or wiretaps in this case. It may be that her evidence will have less weight attributed to it in light of this recent development.

The prosecution has not been placed at particular risk, notwithstanding the indignation expressed by the media and, sadly, the majority of the viewing public.

This type of incident is not particularly uncommon. Rather than simply piling on reflexively and demonizing Mr. Brassington, I suggest that a deeper analysis is warranted. In all categories of high risk policing, close supervision is of critical necessity. Long term immersion in the investigation of homicides, organized crime, witness protection, informants, wiretap or undercover operations can do things to people.

The “Surrey Six” case has all of these components. The need for adequate supervision within these environments is extreme, given the minefield within which these people operate. Every day of their working lives, these people are subjected to stresses the average person cannot fairly contemplate. The consequences of error are enormous, and the dangers absolute.

I have spoken to a number of observers on this subject in recent days, people from several walks of life outside the policing community. In general terms, they have provided an astute commentary. Without exception, their reaction included the suggestion that Sgt. Brassington’s actions must have been at least partly attributed to stress overload. I subscribe to this perception. An immediate supervisor should have been paying close attention to this member.

In my long policing journey spent almost exclusively in high risk assignments, I have observed weak supervision derail many promising careers. Second only to its extraordinarily weak leadership at the executive level, the biggest vulnerability within the RCMP is the lack of quality supervision within the rank and file. These men and women responsible for solving crimes such as the “Surrey Six” are real people with domestic obligations and pressures like the rest of us. Add 70 hours per week targeting the Red Scorpions without someone above them in rank keeping an eye out for signs of trouble, and nasty things can happen.

I don’t know Derek Brassington and can’t condone what he did. I think, however, that there may well be a medical explanation for his actions.

1 Comment »

The Accidental Informant

Posted by admin - January 6th, 2010

I read Fabian Dawson’s article in the January 5th edition of The Vancouver Province with great interest.  The front page photograph of well known narcotics importer  trafficker Colin Martin was accompanied by the curiously worded title  “The accidental informant”.   Given the content of Mr Dawson’s article, this label would seem to be inaccurate. Mr Martin was described as offering to help drug enforcement efforts on both sides of the Canada / U.S. border, “provided they let him continue to do business unimpeded for ten years”, court papers show.

As the former commander of Human Source Management for the RCMP in British Columbia, I can say with absolute confidence that no government or police agency in North America would contemplate such a relationship with an informant.  The risk to the public resulting from a carte blanche licence to smuggle substances such as cocaine and ecstasy across federal borders is so substantial as to make the prospect ludicrous…..no matter how valuable the information.   While this notion of a “licence” may have formed part of Mr Martin’s offer to drug enforcement authorities, it would never receive serious consideration.

Can you imagine the position in which a government institution might find itself if a series of fatal overdoses were to be connected with a shipment handled by Mr Martin under such an arrangement? A proposal of this nature would never be approved by a thinking police manager.

It is, however, uncomfortable to contemplate the plight of Mr Martin whose identity has been disclosed in advance of the “Operation Blade Runner” trials.  The vulnerabilities felt by Mr Martin are not his alone if Mr Dawson’s account is accurate.  If an American or Canadian law enforcement agency did, in fact, improperly disclose the details of Mr Martin’s contributions, the consequences to the taxpayer will also be significant.  Keeping Mr Martin out of harm’s way will be an expensive and long term reality.  While I am highly skeptical of the depiction of the “hit-team” described in the article, Mr Dawson is correct in his assertion that one or more conspiracies to murder Mr Martin will result from this information entering the public domain.  Under Canadian law, informant privilege is held sacred as a crucial weapon in criminal investigations.  The Supreme Court of Canada dictates that the only circumstance which might warrant an erosion of the informant privilege afforded a confidential source like Mr Martin would be if the innocence of an accused person being tried is at stake.

The RCMP had no option but to provide a warning to this career criminal once they learned of a threat against his life.  A likely consequence of the unfortunate disclosure of his contributions as an informant will include the provision of long term protective arrangements for Mr Martin, a household name in drug enforcement circles.  Beyond the cost of these protective measures, the civil exposure faced by the agency responsible for the error could be enormous.

One of the realities of international organized crime prosecutions is the necessary reliance upon cooperation from  major gangsters by law enforcement officials.  It has always been this way.  Strong police management, committed supervision and excellent communication with Crown Counsel are essential components of a successful prosecution at this level.  The wrong people are sometimes assigned these roles.  These high risk investigations are not for the meek or the inexperienced.

Let’s hope everything works out.

No Comments »

Communications involving inmates may be monitored to ensure that jailbreaks and drug trafficking are prevented

Posted by admin - December 15th, 2009

The comments attributed to B.C. Supreme Court Justice Mark McEwan are more than justified in response to revelations about unauthorized recordings of intercepts made of telephone calls between accused murderer Jamie Bacon and his legal counsel. One of the core principles of the criminal law is the reverence which must be shown for solicitor client privilege. Only in exceptional circumstances are the police authorized to intercept these communications. A Supreme Court Justice, when authorizing such an aggressive evidence gathering tactic, must be completely satisfied that the conversation between a lawyer and the client is likely to be of a criminal nature. That is to say that the authorizing judge must feel satisfied that evidence of criminal behaviour on the part of the lawyer will be gathered if the communications are subject to interception. While it is not without precedent that defense counsel will engage in criminal conspiracies with their clients, it is safe to say that most do not.

Of critical importance when examining the facts as they unfold from Surrey Pre-Trial Centre is the distinction between corrections staff and the law enforcement agencies involved in the Surrey Six mass murder investigation targeting Jamie Bacon and his co-accused. While corrections staff and the police are both components of “the state” when contemplating infringements against the rights of the accused, it is my view that the firewall between these government agencies is sufficient to protect the integrity of the case against Mr Bacon and his confederates.

There is a longstanding tradition within the prison world that states institutional security requires that communications involving inmates may be randomly monitored to ensure that jailbreaks, drug trafficking and other nasty activities are prevented wherever possible. I strongly suspect that what occurred in this case was an error by institutional employees in not turning off a machine, and not a draconian attempt to listen to conversations between Mr Bacon and his lawyer. We should wait for the completion of the investigation into these unlawful interceptions before setting our hair on fire. I anticipate that the evidence will show that while these privileged conversations may have been inadvertently recorded, they were not monitored for their content. Ultimately, this is the test when one considers good or bad faith.

If this is the finding, it is my view that the prosecution of Mr Bacon and his friends will continue unimpeded. The public will accept no other outcome in this horrible case of drugs, greed and the murder of two innocents.

No Comments »

Judge Delivers Body Blow to Crown in Hell’s Angels Case

Posted by admin - December 7th, 2009

Much hand-wringing and expressions of disbelief have resulted from BC Provincial Crown Counsel’s latest failure to capitalize on criminal organization legislation introduced a few years ago in response to the growth and prosperity enjoyed by criminal gangs across Canada. In Neal Hall’s Vancouver Sun column from November 28 he refers to RCMP Inspector Gary Shinkaruk’s surprise when comparing this BC Supreme Court result with more favourable outcomes in Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba.

A few people have expressed their concern to me after reading Hall’s description of the smiling judge and his six second announcement in support of a defense application that Crown cannot proceed with charges that allege that the Hell’s Angels meet the Criminal Code definition of a criminal organization. More still have expressed frustration with the image of the smiling accused reacting to the announcement from the bench. I feel badly for the police on this one….Project E-Pandora was an outstanding effort by these talented and dedicated officers.

Having not witnessed these proceedings, it’s difficult to determine where the breakdown occurred. Clearly, the presiding judge wasn’t satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the Crown’s case was proven with respect to this particular legislation. Out of regard for the public interest, we can only hope that the remaining substantive drug charges result in the appropriate verdict and prison terms for this misunderstood pair of motorcycle enthusiasts.

On the good news front when contemplating the crime business, kudos to Jim Chu and Doug Lepard of the VPD in demonstrating real leadership in their expression of support for a full public inquiry into the investigation of the Missing Women case. Knowing full well that the findings will not likely flatter their department or the RCMP, it’s this kind of principle-based leadership which should restore widespread confidence in our policing institutions. The public inquiry will, in all likelihood, surface examples of mistakes made at full speed which can be forgiven. It may also surface decisions based on the socio-economic status of these victims, which should not. As Maggie DeVries, the sister of Sarah, has said….”it’s a very loud silence”.  Read more…

The truth will come out. We will learn from this.

No Comments »

Criticisms of the Mr. Big Technique in Homicide Investigation

Posted by admin - December 4th, 2009

I have heard enough one-sided, subjective arguments in the media characterizing the use of this investigative technique as reckless and unfair. It seems that the arguments in support of the use of this advanced tradecraft prevail where it really matters, in Provincial and Supreme Courts across Canada. This highly effective investigative tool was first developed in North Vancouver ( /R. v Beaulac/ ) in 1988 whereby one of the pioneers of Canadian undercover operations, Jean-Yves Pineault, created mock crime scenarios which convinced the suspect to make disclosures to him about the murder he had committed. In that case, as with the vast majority of homicide undercover operations which followed, these disclosures contained intimacies of the offence known only to the killer, an important ingredient in the avoidance of false confessions. This is referred to as “hold back evidence”, and the careful handling of this critical information is essential for the confession to be viewed as credible by triers of fact within the judicial process.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police Undercover Unit in Vancouver has developed and honed this technique over the past twenty years to the point where they are the envy of law enforcement agencies world-wide. Senior investigators from dozens of countries around the globe have travelled to Vancouver for exposure to this tradecraft which has solved hundreds of murders across Canada, and a growing number around the world.

Contrary to the complaints from those who would strip the police of such a valuable investigative tool, there is limited value placed on a murder confession provided to undercover operatives in the absence of a significant amount of corroboration. In each case where a suspect has disclosed his or her responsibility for a killing, this is when the work really begins. The validity of the confession is rigorously tested by re-examination of the forensic evidence, DNA comparisons, video-taped re-enactments, further forensic interviews, wiretap applications and other advanced investigative weaponry. No police investigator wants to charge an innocent person. In twenty-nine years of policing in some of the highest risk sections within law enforcement, I am certain that I have never brought an innocent party before the courts. Having participated in over forty “Mr. Big” confessions myself in a variety of roles, I can unequivocally say that there is little satisfaction in obtaining a disclosure to a murder on its own. Examples of the most meaningful evidence occur when a suspect takes an undercover operative to a shallow grave and exposes the body, a murder weapon or produces articles bearing trace evidence to corroborate the account which he or she has provided.

The position of the courts with respect to undercover confessions is very clear, and one that all professional investigators understand. In the absence of corroboration, these admissions are of little value on their own. The job of an investigator in the 21st century requires the elimination of reasonable doubt to achieve a conviction. I subscribe to this standard of proof as a necessity in preventing wrongful convictions. The recovery of corroborating evidence well after a murder charge is laid must be pursued with passion and commitment. Anything less places the prosecution at risk.

I think it’s important for people to understand how much integrity goes into this investigative process before criticizing it in the absence of the facts. The Canadian public needs its law enforcement agencies to be properly equipped to get the job done. No less than the Supreme Court of Canada has spoken at length about the importance of this critical investigative tool. We should all celebrate the wisdom of the judiciary in this regard.

In our work with private sector clients we continue to employ this technique in the conduct of our investigations, and have realized considerable success in bringing home critical evidence, improving our clients’ business position in each and every instance.

No Comments »

Corporate Fraud

Posted by admin - November 27th, 2009

I just finished reading an article in the Globe & Mail about corporate fraud. I agree that fraud is a huge problem, and the numbers in this article probably reflects the results of the survey. But, I think the problem is much bigger than the numbers in this article present.

Common sense would suggest that published numbers associated to crime levels, for any type of crime, are going to be lower than in reality. There are many reasons for this: under reported crimes, undetected crimes, errors in police reporting and tracking systems, crime classification differences, to name a few.

Fraud is a growth industry. Hard times contribute to and motivate people to make bad decisions. High unemployment, bankruptcies, cut backs, fewer opportunities for people to work overtime. Fraud is not a new phenomenon. It didn’t just start when the economy went into the dumper.

People always look for opportunities. Nothing motivates people more than a good deal or a “once in a life time” opportunity. We buy bulk at Costco, we scoop up deals at Winners, and we grab 2 fer 1’s at Safeway. Why should people with an inclination to steal be any different?

We make fraud easy and it cannot be eradicated. It’s that “opportunity” I was talking about. Low risk opportunities with high potential for gain. Companies try to save a buck by making internal adjustments and in doing so; they expose themselves to more and different opportunities for fraud. Here’s an example: a corporate IT person makes a recommendation to management to install software that would allow the company to detect and monitor financial transactions, the movement of inventory and internal communications on their network. Due to the cost of the software, management decides to pass on the recommendation. This was a cost based decision, not a risk mitigation based decision. Over the longer term, the company’s vulnerability is much higher.

What’s the answer? It’s not tighter regulations, more laws, hard-ass regulators. They take that approach in the USA and their problem is worse than ours. In Canada, we are not there yet. One suggestion might be to make the companies and those who own and manage them more accountable for protecting their finances through the implementation of practical prevention strategies.

Many individuals and companies are aware of CPTED (Crime Prevention Though Environmental Design) and have utilized this approach to protect the exterior of their buildings. It’s a multi-disciplinary approach to reducing the risk of a physical attack on a business premise or home. A similar mind set towards internal defense should be taken with corporate processes and systems. Implementing detection and audit measures that will provide management with timely information about unauthorized, inappropriate and illegal activity that could jeopardize the company is never a bad decision.

The police aren’t resourced to deal with every fraud complaint. Fraud can be reduced, even detected through the implementation of sound HR policies, finance protocols, accounting and stock audits, IT security protocols, detection software and surveillance equipment.

If you want to read a good summary of a very detailed fraud survey, go to www.acfe.com and look at the 2008 Report to the Nation.

No Comments »

Newer Entries »