Final arguments in hearing of former PA police officer

Heffernan said that prosecuting the traffic violation breached the police service’s policy. He argued Robin never took the opportunity to learn the service’s policy, even though he was told how to access it and listed it as one of his goals in each of his performance reviews. Heffernan said Robin also placed himself in a conflict of interest, because the man he was prosecuting had filed a complaint against him.

Heffernan then addressed how Robin, while on administrative leave, gave Ian Reiman the witnesses’ contact information. Reiman is a retired Prince Albert police officer and confidant of Robin. Heffernan said by knowing Reiman was going to call the witnesses, and since Reiman was acting as an agent on his behalf, it violated Chief Dale McFee’s instructions not to contact the witnesses.

The next was how Robin didn’t tell the truth to an investigator with the PCC about releasing the witnesses’ contact information. Heffernan stressed Robin didn’t “deflect”, he “lied”, adding Robin didn’t fully confess the truth during the second interview.

Lastly, Heffernan said Robin went to the RCMP to try and have both Chief McFee, as well as other senior officers, charged with obstruction of justice without sufficient evidence.

In closing, Heffernan said McFee’s decision to dismiss Robin was justified. He did not dispute the fact Robin has good abilities, as was clearly stated in his performance reviews. He said it’s Robin’s character that there is an issue with.

Heffernan said the choices Robin made show, “recklessness… stubbornness…self-righteousness… confrontational… aggressiveness… insubordination… unwillingness to recognize authority of those who don’t agree with him.”

Heffernan said police look for officers that are obedient to the law, policies, and chain-of-command characteristics of the police force, and that Robin is “unsuitable for police service.”

Defence’s argument

Patrick Robin’s lawyer, Terry Zakreski, said Robin didn’t willfully mislead his superiors when he chose to prosecute the traffic violation himself. Zakreski said he was open to everyone in the office about what he was doing. He said while Robin should have asked his superior or the Crown beforehand, he honestly thought he was legally authorized to do so.

Zakreski said there may be the perception that there was a conflict of interest, but there wasn’t, as Robin held no animosity towards the man he was prosecuting.

“The perception of justice was between a rock and a hard place,” said Zakreski, explaining it means he had a choice of prosecuting the case and there appearing to be a conflict of interest, or he could let the man accused of dangerous driving go.

“The perception of justice was better served with what Robin did than by letting (the man) go,” said Zakreski.

Zakreski addressed the issue of Robin giving Reiman the witnesses’ contact information. He said Reiman was acting as an advisor or an agent, and that it was legal under the Police Act for Robin to share the information in order to defend himself. The case had been dropped by this point, and Zakreski said there was no issue in Reiman calling the witnesses to inform them that it had, and to inform them why. What was wrong was how Reiman chose to phone the witnesses’ anonymously.

Zakreski said Reiman had said at the hearing, “I took the ball away from Patrick,” meaning it was his idea, not Robin’s.

Zakreski said that Robin was caught off guard in the interview with the PCC with the question concerning him giving the witnesses’ contact information to Reiman. Zakreski said Robin was given a list of the matters being investigated, and was told if any others were added he’d be informed. He was never told of these allegations.

Zakreski said this was against the police service’s policy, but Heffernan argued the PCC don’t have to follow the service’s policy.

Zakreski said it would have been better had Robin objected to the questions being asked, but he didn’t have time to think and is trained to deflect. He also said Robin had been told before the questioning started to answer all the questions, he might not have known he had the choice to object.

Zakreski said Robin had reasonable and probable cause to believe there had been an obstruction of justice on the part of Chief McFee and the Prince Albert Police Service when he went to the RCMP.

Zakreski said Robin was told a Crown prosecutor would take over the case, and on that same day, it was dropped. Zakreski said no one told Robin this had happened and it looked like it was withdrawn by the police.

Zakreski also said that Robin approached the RCMP in confidence, and it was wrong for them to forward it to his employee.

Submissions

Zakreski said if Robin is found guilty of all the charges against him, it still shouldn’t warrant a dismissal.

Zakreski mentioned several cases where police officers were found guilty of much what he called much worse offences, and not fired or were reinstated.

Zakreski said the Prince Albert Police Service went straight to the “capital punishment” when dealing with Robin, rather than issuing a remedial punishment first.

Dan Heffernan said he believes the charges against Patrick Robin are serious and that his dismissal was the right course of action and should be upheld.

The Saskatchewan Police Commission will now take all the evidence presented at the hearing, and will make its decision.

rpilon@panow.com

by Ryan Pilon

Final arguments in hearing of former PA police officer

Police service’s argument

Defence’s argument

Submissions

What's Trending