Officer did nothing wrong, probe finds
The nine seconds that preceded crash
A West Shore RCMP officer who tried to stop the driver of the pickup truck that killed Const. Sarah Beckett did nothing wrong.
After a 15-month investigation, a statement from the B.C. Prosecution Service revealed the officer’s involvement lasted a mere nine seconds from the time he tried to pull over Kenneth Jacob Fenton’s pickup truck until the fatal crash.
The incident was investigated by the Independent Investigations Office, which submitted a report to prosecutors.
The drawn-out process was criticized by a representative of the Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada, one of the groups seeking to represent RCMP members in collective bargaining.
“To have this hanging over his head for as long as it has, I think is unacceptable,” said Rob Creasser, a retired Mountie who lives in Kamloops. “It creates unnecessary anxiety.”
He called the idea of a civilianled agency to investigate police “a noble pursuit,” but said in practical terms that means involving people without the necessary investigative skills. “I have no problem with the IIO as an agency, but they have to do a better job.”
According to the statement, the Crown was considering three possible charges against the officer. They were dangerous driving, dangerous driving causing the death of Beckett and obstruction of justice.
The evidence showed the officer did not drive in a manner dangerous to the public. When he first saw Fenton driving without his tail lights on, he closed the distance between his cruiser and the pickup, exceeding the speed limit for a brief period. His speed reached 63.8 km/h gradually over 25 seconds.
There’s no evidence he pursued Fenton’s truck. Within two seconds of Fenton accelerating, he told dispatch he was shutting it down, said the statement.
Although the police officer exceeded the speed limit, it was done in compliance with the Motor Vehicle Act and the RCMP policy manual. He never tried to overtake Fenton’s truck.
The obstruction of justice charge was considered because of discrepancies between the accounts given by the officer and other evidence.
“However, there is no direct evidence to prove that the officer wilfully made false statements that he knew would tend to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice,” said the B.C. Prosecution Service statement.
The officer’s account is consistent with an honest but mistaken recollection of an extremely traumatic event that occurred in a very brief period of time, it said.