The "Hiestand PII" arose from complaints submitted by Major Hiestand's family in Spring and Summer 2022. Initially, the MPCC declined to conduct a PII. However, on 21 November 2022, following reporting by Murray Brewster of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) in September 2022, the (then) Acting Chair of the MPCC reversed her earlier decision and directed that a PII would be conducted. However, the PII was commenced in earnest only after the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal's (CFPM) Professional Standards (PS) section completed its own internal investigation.
The Hiestand complaints focused on the conduct of the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS), including their interviews (or failure to interview) witnesses and the arrest of Major Hiestand.
Consistent with multiple past examples, the Professional Standards section concluded that the complaints against CFNIS investigators "were not substantiated". However, following the PII, the Chair of the MPCC offered multiple findings of professional misconduct, wrongdoing, and shortcomings in the investigation, and offered thirteen (13) recommendations to improve CFNIS investigative practices.
Overall, the MPCC Chair found that the CFNIS investigation suffered from a rush to judgment and confirmation bias. It lacked supervisory oversight and failed to probe critical issues, such as consent. It failed to pursue critical witness interviews and failed to review relevant text messages between the complainant and accused. It was marked by undue haste in arresting and charging Maj Hiestand. The Chair of the MPCC found that the CFNIS failed to conduct an impartial and thorough investigation.
Of note, the MPCC Chair also criticized the review by the military police Professional Standards section. The MPCC Chair noted several circumstances in which Professional Standards investigators made "observations" of multiple deficiencies in the conduct of the CFNIS investigation, but subsequently refused to make any adverse findings regarding the investigation or conduct of the investigators.
The MPCC Chair expressly identified the dissonance between the failures in the CFNIS investigation and the conclusions offered by the Professional Standards (PS) section. For example, in relation to the investigation of one of the allegations made against the accused, the Chair observed:
111. Although the PS investigator documented these extensive shortcomings, the Findings Report did not reflect the full scope of these investigative deficiencies. This omission raises concerns regarding the transparency and completeness of the PS report. Moreover, this approach weakens institutional transparency and limits learning. The PS investigator declined to be interviewed, leaving key questions unresolved about the criteria and rationale used to assess and categorize these deficiencies.
112. The CFNIS investigation suffered from multiple failures to pursue standard investigative avenues. Investigators relied on assumptions, failed to consider or pursue search warrants, and neglected relevant witness interviews. These deficiencies raise serious concerns about the thoroughness, objectivity and professionalism of the investigation.
Thus, not only was the CFNIS investigation significantly flawed, the review by the Professional Standards section was also deficient.
The CFPM rejected all of the recommendations offered in this report.
The second PII (the "Warsame PII") was commenced following a complaint of a former military police non-commissioned member (NCM) who had been posted to Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Moose Jaw. Former Master-Corporal Warsame submitted a complaint regarding the initial intake conducted by the military police detachment at CFB Moose Jaw. These military police personnel were distinct from the CFNIS personnel who subsequently conducted the investigation.
The report of the "Warsame PII" identified several alarming instances of wrongdoing by the military police detachment, including: (a) failing to record the alleged victim’s initial police interview, despite having the means to do so; (b) assigning inexperienced military police members to conduct the interview; (c) participation of an intoxicated supervisor in decision making about the case; and (d) allowing someone who was potentially involved in the case to sit in on the alleged victim’s interview.
The Chair of the MPCC offered four recommendations to improve military police intake processes for sexual assault investigations. The CFPM rejected all but one of these allegations.
Out of 17 recommendations, the CFPM accepted only one. Moreover, the CFPM appeared to downplay not only the shortcomings of the intake by the CFB Moose Jaw detachment and the investigation by the CFNIS, but also the shortcomings of the review her own Professional Standards section.
The Chair of the MPCC had this to say about the CFPM's response:
“It is deeply concerning that all but one of the recommendations in these Final Reports were not accepted... This shows a lack of accountability for the shortcomings identified in this investigation. Without a willingness to confront these failures and commit to meaningful change, the systemic issues highlighted in this investigation will remain unaddressed, to the detriment of future military police investigators, complainants, suspects and the integrity of military policing as a whole. In my view, such an outcome compounds the already tragic elements of this case.”
[In Canada, if you or someone you know is struggling, here's where to get help:
Talk Suicide Canada: 1-833-456-4566 (phone) | 45645 (text between 4 p.m. and midnight ET).
Suicide Crisis Helpline can be reached anywhere and anytime at 9-8-8.
Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) provides 24/7, free mental health support, including counselling, operational stress injury (OSI) clinics, and peer support for veterans, RCMP, and their families. Immediate help is available by calling 1-800-268-7708 or texting 9-8-8 for suicide crisis support. Specialized services cover PTSD, transition challenges, and therapy.]
[NB: This Blog post was prepared by Rory Fowler, counsel for the Hiestand family.]
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are subject to moderation and must be submitted under your real name. Anonymous comments will not be posted (even though the form seems to permit them).