Officer suspended with pay almost 3 years fired for discreditable conduct
CHATHAM When it came to convincing people to loan him money, Sgt. Robert Mugridge would shed tears, cite problems with addicted relatives, and sometimes asked while in uniform having arrived in his police cruiser.
These were among the details of an agreed statement of facts that were read out during a Police Services Act hearing in Chatham on Tuesday concerning the officer’s actions.
Mugridge, who pleaded guilty to 50 counts of discreditable conduct dating back to 2010. He will be losing his job for his actions.
Chatham-Kent Police Service Chief Gary Conn said Wednesday that any discipline hearing is a difficult process but the dismissal of Mugridge was appropriate.
“I hope this heads in the right direction toward providing some closure not only for our service, but the 44 victims involved in this matter as well,” Conn said. “Given the multitude and severity of charges brought before Sgt. Mugridge, I believe that dismissal is appropriate.”
The chief said the goal for a disciplinary hearing is three-fold.
“No. 1, we want to hold the person accountable for their actions,” he said. “No. 2, we want to send a strong message to others that we will not tolerate this type of behaviour, and No. 3, and probably most important, is to ensure and maintain public trust.”
Mugridge has also been charged criminally with more than 50 counts of fraud, which is still before the court.
During Tuesday’s hearing, Mugridge sat quietly as details of the numerous excuses he used to get people to loan him money were revealed. These people included neighbours, businessowners, relatives, co-workers, people from his church and people he met through activities his children participated in.
There was often a veil of secrecy around the loans with a common request that the person giving him the money not tell his wife.
An overview of some details will be provided without naming the victims.
Mugridge borrowed anywhere from $10,000 to $500, but often it was at least over $1,000. A small number of people received some repayment, but many people were not paid back a cent, despite him agreeing, on many occasions, to pay the money back with interest.
According to the statement of facts, there were times Mugridge would be shedding tears — sometimes while in uniform having arrived in his cruiser — and be quite emotional as he asked people for money.
An excuse given a number of times why he needed funds was that he had siblings with drug and alcohol addictions, which he was paying for, so he was short of money.
On one occasion, Mugridge told someone he needed $2,000 to send a sibling to rehab. He told another person his addicted siblings took money from his mother.
Another popular excuse why he needed money was to pay for a child’s post-secondary tuition, because he had to previously use the money for another purpose.
On one occasion he asked someone for $2,535 to pay for university tuition. The person made the cheque out to the university, but Mugridge called later claiming the university wouldn’t accept it and he needed the cheque made out to him.
It was stated by Mugridge that the person refused this request, but the cheque was later cashed by the university.
However, it was noted that numerous times the loans requested for tuition were never used for that purpose.
Mugridge also often stated he needed money because he had to pay back another loan that someone was demanding repayment for.
On at least one occasion, someone who loaned him money found out shortly after he took his family on vacation.
Some people questioned why a police officer needed a loan, but Mugridge would have excuses such as a customer stiffed him on a job that he did through a fence and decking business he ran on the side.
However, the officer gave some of his lenders assurances they would be repaid their money when he got either retroactive pay or a raise on an upcoming police contract.
It was noted the officer has declared bankruptcy, but no details were given about why he asked so many people for money.
After the statement of facts were read, the hearing officer, retired OPP Supt. Morris Elbers, gave Mugridge the opportunity to make a statement.
“No thank you, sir,” Mugridge replied.
Mugridge has been suspended with pay since May 2014 in relation to the criminal investigation.
Conn said there is hope the Ontario government will amend to Police Services Act to address the issue of suspension with pay. The chief said there are provisions in the Act for suspension without pay, “but for that to occur, the subject officers has to be sentenced to a period of incarceration.”
If the Police Services Act is opened for amendment, Conn said there is a recommendation that the definition of suspended without pay be expanded to allow police chiefs to suspend without pay an officer facing serious offences where dismissal would be sought as a penalty.