Chief’s visit to crime site prompts call for review

FREDERICTON • The New Brunswick Police Commission has asked for an outside review of how it conducts investigations after criticism of its probe into a senior officer’s conduct following multimillionaire businessman Richard Oland’s murder.

The commission said Wednesday it has asked the public safety minister to appoint an independent third party to review allegations made by the province’s police association.

Last month, the association accused the police oversight body of being “out of control,” and alleged it is being run in an “abusive, authoritarian fashion.”

Association executive director Bob Davidson said the case of Glen Mccloskey — a former deputy police chief in Saint John who came under scrutiny in the Oland case — is an example of the commission “completely ignoring legislative rights.”

Lynn Chaplin, the police commission’s acting chairwoman, said Wednesday it is committed to continually reviewing its practices and meeting its mandate “with integrity and impartiality.”

Chaplin said last month the commission is reviewing how it conducts investigations, part of a “strategic planning process.”

Dennis Oland is charged with the second-degree murder of his father Richard in July 2011.

His retrial is scheduled to continue Jan. 7.

At Oland’s first trial in 2015, a witness alleged Mccloskey asked him to change his testimony not to reveal the high-ranking officer had been at the crime scene.

Mccloskey denied the allegation when he took the stand, but said he had entered the crime scene because he was curious.

Although Mccloskey retired before the commission held a hearing — it only investigates officers on active duty — it still gathered information on the matter.

Davidson alleged the police commission violated Mccloskey’s privacy by giving its entire file on McCloskey to lawyers involved in the second Oland trial, prompting a complaint to the province’s Office of the Integrity Commissioner.

He said a decision last month found the police commission did not have authority to disclose the information to Crown prosecutors or the defence team, and had breached Mccloskey’s privacy in two instances by disclosing his personal information.