What this letter is about is the lack of willingness by Hamilton Police Services to do a proper investigation into the misconduct of their fellow officers. If the police have a duty in their mandate to investigate crimes which would include the obstruction of justice why would they not do it?
Why wouldn't they want to ensure that confidence in Police services is kept to the highest standards?
Will wait for a reply.



TO: Chief of Police Chief Glenn De Caire /
Randy Graham Detective Sergeant
Professional Standards Branch
Tel - (905) 540 – 6660
Fax - (905) 546 – 2411

From: Dan Perrins
XX XXXXXX XXXXX
Dundas Ont.
XXX - XXX

RE: Public Complaint #80-10

I have received your reply to my complaint pertaining to events that have been ongoing since January of 2009. I acknowledge section 59(4) of the Police Services Act exists in period in time law.

However pursuant to section 59 (2) and 59 (6) of the Police Services Act it is the Chief of Police who is to respond to complaints made by the public. (see below)

Notice re nature of complaint
59 (2) The chief of police shall notify the complainant in writing of his or her determination that the complaint is about the policies of or services provided by the police force or is about the conduct of a police officer and of the complainant’s right to ask the Commission to review the determination within 30 days of receiving the notice
Pursuant to section 59.6 which reads as follows:
(6) If the chief of police decides not to deal with a complaint under subsection (3), (4) or (5), he or she shall notify the complainant and the police officer who is the subject of the complaint, if any, in writing, of the decision and of the complainant’s right to ask the Commission to review the decision within 30 days of receiving the notice.
Therefore from the clear wording of Section 59 (2) and 59(6) your response letter does not conform with the Police Services Act and is in direct violation of the aforementioned sections of the Police Services Act which renders it void.

It is also apparent under section 139 (2) of the criminal code of Canada that the crime of obstructing justice is an indictable offence. Indictable offences are of a serious nature and as such do not have the same time limits as a summary offence. Since my complaints deal with obstructing justice engaged in by some of the officers working for Hamilton Police Services a crime which carries a possible penalty of up to ten (10) years the seriousness of the misconduct / obstruction of justice warrants an investigation to ensure continued faith in police services by the community at large.

I must therefore request that since Sergeant Randy Graham has attempted to obstruct the course of justice by not adhering to S (59 (2) and 59 (6) of The Police Services Act be removed from involvement in my complaint. I would also submit that by not conforming to the Police Services Act he has in been insubordinate and or has tried to impede ,pervert and defeat the investigation into my complaints.
I must also therefore lodge a complaint against Sergeant Randy Graham for attempting to obstruct justice for not following the procedures outlined in sections 59 (2) and (6) of the Police Services Act.

Section 139.2 of the Criminal code of Canada states as follows:

(2) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

Sergeant Graham must have read section 59(2) of the Police services Act to have reached Section 4 of said act it illustrates that he knowingly and wilfully chose to act in direct violation of the applicable sections of said act. Further since Sergeant Graham did knowingly and wilfully act in direct violation said act this constitutes an attempt to Obstruct the natural course of justice.

Pursuant to section 59 (4) it does say my complaint may be dismissed on the grounds that a time limit has expired it is not required that it should be. It is clear that in the best interest of the community an investigation should be started to prove or disprove my allegations. It is also clear that for the public to have faith in Hamilton Police Services there is a need for allegations to be addressed in a proper manner which would include investigations into obstruction of justice allegations by me. To not investigate what I claim would in fact be detrimental to the public's faith in the ability to trust Hamilton Police Services.

Section 42 describes the duties of a police officer as follows:

(1) The duties of a police officer include,

(a) preserving the peace;

(b) preventing crimes and other offences and providing assistance and encouragement to other persons in their prevention;

(c) assisting victims of crime;

(d) apprehending criminals and other offenders and others who may lawfully be taken into custody;

(e) laying charges and participating in prosecutions;

(f) executing warrants that are to be executed by police officers and performing related duties;

(g) performing the lawful duties that the chief of police assigns;

(h) in the case of a municipal police force and in the case of an agreement under section 10 (agreement for provision of police services by O.P.P.), enforcing municipal by-laws;

(i) completing the prescribed training. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, s. 42 (1); 1997, c. 8, s. 28.

Pursuant to section 42(c) and in conjunction with (d) and (e) a police officer's duties include the assistance of victims of crimes and as well pursuant to subsection (d) apprehend offenders and pursuant to section (e) lay charges and participate in prosecutions.

By refusing to investigate the allegations of misconduct and or obstruction of justice by officers currently employed by Hamilton Police Services is in direct violation with the aforementioned duties.
It is in the public's interest to have a police force which is both transparent and as well held accountable for its actions. Failure to have officers held accountable for their actions only lessens the community's faith in Hamilton Police Services.

In a letter from The Office of the Independent Police Review Director it is clearly stated that “...the incidents you have referred to are ongoing issues that predate October 19, 2009 the date on which the legislation that established the OIPRD...”
The letter from the OIPRD is clear in illustrating that these incidents fall under your jurisdiction and as such should be addressed by your organization. Since the latest incident occurred on October 8, 2010 it is well within the six month period as outlined under section 59(4).
The situation is ongoing and therefore not just a single incident that happened beyond the six month time limit. This creates a responsibility for an investigation by your organization.
Failure to investigate will result in a loss of respect and faith in Hamilton Police Services by citizens of the community. This would not be in Hamilton Police Services best interest for the service relies heavily on the public being able to trust in your ability to hold any individuals accountable to the rule of law.

Given that my complaints involves the criminal Charge of Obstructing Justice pursuant to S 139 (2) under the criminal code of Canada which is a serious offence carrying a possible term of 10 years upon conviction it is clear that in the best interest of the public and Hamilton Police Services to clear their name of any involvement in this matter and or have those involved in the any illegal act similar to S 139 (2) disciplined.

Hamilton Police have vast powers over the people they are sworn to protect. The trust in police acting ethically while doing there jobs is perhaps the best way for police to have crimes reported to them. A lack in the belief that Police are doing their jobs properly and ethically is roadblock for police whether it is reported in the local papers or not. Bad news travels fast and as such word of mouth carries the actions or the lack of proper actions by the police just as fast.
By launching an investigation into what I allege and have been posting on my website serves only to clear Hamilton Police Services name. A failure to investigate the serious claims of obstructing justice only dirties the Hamilton Police Services name in the public's collective consciousness.
With recent articles and court cases having been negatively impacted by the lack of local police services it is clear the public's opinion in the ability to be an ethical and moral organization is decreasing exponentially.
The perception of the local police is right now is not the best, and by not investigating the actions of the police employees it only serves to lessen the community's faith in police.
You I am sure are already well aware of my website where everything is posted and is also spread via “twitter” facebook and other social networking websites. Lack of action will as well be posted and spread through the web. This will only serve to lessen the public's faith in police services which again will only inhibit police from receiving information when they ask for it from the community.
I would like to direct your attention to the fact that Insp. D. Doel was involved in the original complaint back in July of 2009. Inspector Doel is now under investigation for misconduct as well as obstruction of justice. It would be a logical next step to insure that there are no other complainants about Insp. Doel's conduct. I would like to inform you that I as well have a complaint against the conduct of Insp. Doel and as such they should be investigated and either dismissed or added to Insp. Doels list of charges. Again I would like to the fact that Insp. Doels investigation is ongoing and therefore my complaint about his conduct should not fall outside of the six month time suggestion in S. 59(4) of the Police Services Act.

Below is a collection of comments made by the public about recent allegations of police misconduct made in the Hamilton Spectator. It is obvious that faith in the ability of police to be held accountable for their acts of misconduct is increasing. By not investigating my complaints will only add to the distrust of Hamilton Police Services by the community in Hamilton and the surrounding area.

By: JDisher
Nov 25, 2010 2:20 PM Haven't we already determined that the SIU is completely useless and doesn't hold officers responsible for their actions??
Agree 7 Disagree Offensive
By: cheyzac
Nov 25, 2010 2:55 PM WOW,THAT COMES AS A BIG SURPRISE.
Agree 6 Disagree Offensive
By: Stoney
Nov 25, 2010 3:09 PM Officers not at fault Of course they were not at fault; it was those highly toxic bubbles!!
Agree 6 Disagree Offensive
By: jiminycrickett
Nov 25, 2010 3:23 PM Very disturbing, but sadly not surprising. When the people who are employed to protect the public are allowed to assault others without consequence, have the right to "decline" investigation and suffer from amnesia in identifying fellow officers who assault members of the public ... our society is in real trouble. So much for democracy, the right to protest and the freedom of speech.
Agree 6 Disagree Offensive
By: ONEWHOWATCHES
Nov 25, 2010 3:33 PM Cops Not at Fault???? Just remember stories like this when you look at your child or grandchild in the future and say to them "well you see we could have spoke out about it but now we have to live as the leader says we must. I remember we could actually vote! if you wanted to form a union you could and as well you didn't have to go to the leader's church" Getting the picture if we don't demand that police be held accountable then the future is pretty bleak
Agree 6 Disagree Offensive
By: RadioMan
Nov 25, 2010 2:33 PM Officers not at fault for injuries during G20 protests: SIU But ofcourse not. To bad they were not captured on 1 of the many camera's.
Agree 5 Disagree Offensive
By: Mary Hinge
Nov 25, 2010 2:39 PM Surely nobody expected otherwise?
Agree 5 Disagree Offensive
By: rednic32768
Nov 25, 2010 2:15 PM Whitewash!
Agree 4 Disagree Offensive
By: ONEWHOWATCHES
Nov 25, 2010 6:35 PM 22,000 hours I guess the SIU missed the 22,000 hours of video tape that they have used in other investigations to identify police who weren't wearing their name tags from the G 20.
Agree 4 Disagree Offensive
By: aDevil
Nov 25, 2010 6:00 PM Never mind batons... The police should of been shooting violent protesters with live ammunition.
Agree 3 Disagree 4 Offensive
By: dabodeebodah
Nov 25, 2010 5:06 PM It's ok. It's alright for the police to commit criminal acts, since their employer are terrorists. The government is the highest form of organized crime, and the G20 summit was such a disgrace. These reports make me think of how proud these guys are right now that they destroyed our Charter Of Rights And Freedoms and got away with it. Worst part is, most of the general public doesn't know and/or doesn't care. It's only 1000's of innocent Canadian citizens we are talking about here...Agree 3 Disagree Offensive 1
By: HappyPat
Nov 28, 2010 2:25 AM no need to be surprised We have seen this coming for quite some time. The cops can, and WILL, do anything to you that they please. And you will not be able to stop them. The occasional person suing them will win, but their bones will still be broken, the cop will still get paid, and we will have given up a few more of our tax dollars to the victim. Times are going to be tough and the cops will be quite handy with their cattle prods (tasers) on us.
Agree 1 Disagree Offensive
By: WordsOfReason
Nov 28, 2010 4:44 PM SIU IS AS CORRUPT AS THE COPS IT INVESTIGATES!! And to no surprise...because the SIU's employee roster consists mostly of ex-police officers. Gee, it's like the foxes are being trusted to guard the chicken coop. ANYONE WHO DOUBTS THAT POLICE USED EXCESSIVE FORCE NEED TO SEARCH "G-20 TORONTO ABUSE TESTIMONY" DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT. LISTEN TO THOSE WHO WERE ILLEGALLY IMPRISONED AND BEATEN BY POLICE THAT WEEKEND.
Agree 1 Disagree Offensive
By: Awatcher
Nov 25, 2010 5:28 PM Cops in the UK answer to someone US cops can be fired and cannot be kept on when they do this despite what you thnk you see on tv. Canadian cops are as bad as they get.
By: betrayed1
Nov 20, 2010 9:10 AM I wait patiently for the results of these matters.What about the officer stealnglumber, what a bout the officer stealing drugs,i'm sure the list goes on
Agree 6 Disagree 2 Offensive
By: Churchill
Nov 20, 2010 9:46 AM Will the new City Council pass a motion directing the Police Board to pass a policy stating no one with a criminal conviction may serve with Hamilton Police Services? The question is will this Council clean up the Hamilton Police or allow corruption to continue...
Agree 6 Disagree 1 Offensive
By: nojusticeincanada
Nov 20, 2010 10:45 AM Hamilton Police Accountability? No such thing. This is all window dressing. All officers will be returned to duty with a minor demotion. They will be back at their pay scale and rank within a year and all will be forgotten. I have seen this movie several times now.
Agree 5 Disagree 1 Offensive
By: betrayed1
Nov 22, 2010 12:17 PM the mistrust with the HPS just continues on and gets deeper at same time
Agree 2 Disagree Offensive
By: nufsaid
Nov 20, 2010 11:14 AM Got a record?...bye bye job... Its pretty simple, If you have a criminal record you should NOT be allowed to be an officer of law. as usual these "bad seeds" will get time off (with pay) as for the Good cops, i appriciate their sacrafice's. Its gotta be hard not to be tempted by drugs & drug money.
Agree 1 Disagree Offensive
By: HappyPat
Nov 20, 2010 10:33 PM lose 40 hours pay That is the most any of them will get. Likely 40 hours lost pay combined between the 3 of them.
Agree Disagree Offensive
By: nojusticeincanada
Nov 20, 2010 8:38 PM Hamilton Police Double Standard Got a criminal record? The Hamilton police force won't accept you as a recruit. Get convicted of a criminal offense on the job? No problem it will be swept under the rug.
Agree Disagree Offensive
By: aceman44
Nov 22, 2010 5:54 PM three constables go before tribunal Col Russell Williams has me looking at Hamilton cops differently now....
Agree Disagree Offensive
By: Phil_McCrackin
Nov 20, 2010 1:24 AM It's understandable that people want their neighborhoods safe and that this judges decision seems contrary to that belief but ultimately the police broke the rules here. The judges ruling should stand and the police should be ashamed of themselves for their sloppy work. No one wants criminals running free but the police need probable grounds and suspicion is not probable grounds. Imagine if the police thought everyone was a potential criminal...they could pull anyone over and search them like the Nazis. Then what, search peoples homes on a hunch they look like criminals? I can't believe how ignorant some of the comments on here are.
Agree 2 Disagree Offensive 1




It is clear from the above comments made recently in the Hamilton Spectator that the public's faith in police services is waning and by not investigating my claims of misconduct would only increase that lack of faith.
Also included in this appeal is the letter from Office of the Independent Police Review Director which clearly states that this is an ongoing issue. Since the last occurrence was on October 8, 2010 this clearly falls within the 6 month limitation period.



Awaiting your response confirming an investigation into the conduct of employees of Hamilton Police Services is executed from my original documents and posting the reply on the web,



Dan Perrins