BEI closes investigation into fatal 2024 incident at Campbell’s Bay police station

BEI closes investigation into fatal 2024 incident at Campbell’s Bay police station

On July 10, Quebec’s police watchdog the Bureau des enquêtes indépendantes (BEI) announced that they had closed their investigation into a woman who was seriously injured while in police custody at the Sûreté du Québec station in Campbell’s Bay last year, and died several days later in hospital. The BEI is called to investigate whenever someone dies or is seriously injured during a police intervention or while in police custody.

“The information obtained during the investigation leads to the conclusion that the obligations of the police officers involved and the director of the police service involved … were respected,” the statement notes.

The BEI submitted its report to the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions (DPCP) on August 12, 2024 for analysis and decision. Their files included reports from the officers, audio of the 911 calls and SQ radio transmissions, surveillance camera footage, as well as several expert forensic and toxicology reports. They also assigned an investigator as a liaison with the woman’s family over the course of the investigation.

The DPCP’s report, issued July 9, gives the following account of the incident:

On March 1, 2024, a search was conducted at a woman’s home. She was arrested and taken to the police station. The woman was placed in an interrogation room. She exercised her right to counsel and an officer read her her rights. During the officer’s interventions, the woman’s cooperation varied.

At around 9:33 a.m., the woman asked the officer for access to her medication, which was at home. The information was relayed to the officers at the search site. Meanwhile, the woman remained alone in the interrogation room. The images captured show the woman unsteady and losing her balance at times.

At around 10:28 a.m., an officer entered the room and handed her her medication. The woman took her medication and placed a few tablets in her pockets. A few minutes later, the officer returned to the room and asked the woman to give him the pills in her pockets. The officer left the room with the medication containers.

Between 10:37 and 11:15, the woman was alone in the room. At times, she was agitated, screaming and banging on the table. Around 11:08 a.m., the woman appears to convulse and fell to the floor, breathing heavily.

The file contains no evidence as to the location or duties performed by the officers involved during this period.*

At 11:15 a.m., the officer returned to the room and found the woman on the ground. A second officer came to her assistance. They sat her down on a chair and note that she was minimally conscious. However, she did not respond to the officers’ questions. The paramedics were called. The officers placed blankets on the floor to lay the woman down. They turned her on her side and watch her until the paramedics arrive. The paramedics arrived and the woman convulses again. The paramedics take charge of the woman’s care and transport her to hospital. The woman was pronounced neurologically dead on March 4, 2024. The autopsy revealed that the woman had died as a result of multiple drug intoxication.

*The report notes that due to an April 2024 ruling by the Quebec Court of Appeal, officers are no longer required to write a report on the facts of the event for the BEI, as they have a right to remain silent to avoid potential self-incrimination. Since the BEI’s report was submitted to the DCPC after April 30, 2024, the reports from the officers involved were removed from the file.

The DCPC’s report goes on to give an explanation for why they decided not file charges against the officers involved. Under Section 215(c) of the Criminal Code, officers are required to provide those in their custody with the “necessities of life”, which includes medical care.

In order for the DCPC to file charges that officers had failed to perform their duty, they would need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that: the officers failed to provide the necessities of life, that failure endangered or was likely to endanger the woman’s life, and that the officers’ conduct “represented a marked departure from the conduct of a reasonable police officer in circumstances where it was objectively foreseeable that failing to provide medical care to the person would endanger their life or be likely to cause permanent harm to their health.”

The DCPC concluded that the available evidence doesn’t show the officers involved committed a criminal offence.

“The evidence reveals that the intervention took place over several hours. Throughout this period, the officer remained respectful toward the woman,” the report states. “She remained in the interrogation room except when she exercised her right to counsel. The woman’s condition fluctuated throughout the morning. At times, she was calm and answered the officer’s questions, then she refused to answer and ignored him. The surveillance camera footage shows that it was difficult to assess the woman’s condition. Her condition deteriorated when she was alone. It was only upon returning to the interrogation room that the officer became aware of her precarious state of health. At that point, he provided her with assistance and contacted emergency services. The available evidence does not support a finding of marked departure from the conduct of a reasonable police officer in the same circumstances, nor does it support a finding that they failed to provide the necessities of life to a dependent.”

“In criminal law, the burden of proof that the prosecution must meet is very demanding. Due to the principle of the presumption of innocence, the prosecution must demonstrate the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt before the court,” the report adds. “The decision to prosecute or not is a discretionary decision made by the prosecutor in the performance of their professional duties, without fear of judicial or political interference and without yielding to media pressure. Furthermore, it is not the prosecutor’s responsibility to rule on possible civil or ethical misconduct. They only seek evidence that allows them to conclude that a criminal act has been committed and to determine whether they can reasonably prove it. Nor is it their role to make comments or recommendations regarding police intervention methods.”