ANATOMY OF A PRISON RIOT
IT BEGAN WITH COMPLAINTS ABOUT PORTION SIZES AND ENDED WITH MAKESHIFT WEAPONS, FIRE AND MAYHEM.
Hours into a deadly riot at Saskatchewan Penitentiary on Dec. 14, 2016, emergency response team members decided to bust through makeshift barriers that inmates had put up using fridges, washing machines and bed frames.
On the other side, they encountered masked inmates who hurled burning debris, chairs and chunks of concrete and metal at them. Some of the 131 medium- security inmates who took part in the riot were armed with broomsticks whose ends were affixed with sharpened metal tips.
While the Correctional Service of Canada posted a summary of the incident on its website, the agency has never made public its internal blow-by-blow account of the melee, which resulted in one death and multiple murder charges, several injuries and $3.6 million in damage. The National Post received a redacted version of the 161- page Board of Investigation report this week in response to an access- to- information request filed in the spring of 2017.
The Office of the Correctional Investigator, Canada’s prison watchdog, has previously criticized the CSC for not making public such reports. It has also questioned the thoroughness of the CSC’S internal investigation of the riot, pointing out that investigators failed to delve into the living conditions and group dynamics of the riot participants, most of whom were Indigenous and many of whom were gang- affiliated. It has also blasted the report’s conclusions on the causes of the riot, calling them superficial and lacking credibility.
“CSC should not investigate itself when there’s such a tragedy, where there’s riots or somebody dies in segregation,” Ivan Zinger, the correctional investigator, told the National Post. “It’s the same kind of rationale that’s been used with respect to police. When a citizen is seriously injured or dies it’s not the same police force that investigates itself. The same kind of rationale should be used in corrections.”
In a statement, CSC spokeswoman Veronique Rioux defended the agency’s procedures, noting that the Board of Investigation is mandated to ensure responses to incidents are in line with policy and to prevent them from reoccurring. Lessons from the riot continue to be integrated into daily operations and the agency considers all recommendations from the watchdog, she wrote. Because the internal report contained private information it could not be made public.
The riot took place in five corridors, also known as ranges, in the medium-security section of the aging prison located in Prince Albert.
Tensions had been simmering for days, according to the report.
On the morning of Friday, Dec 9, 2016, inmate kitchen workers walked off the job in protest over food portions. One point of contention: the utensil used to scoop scrambled eggs was undersized and not delivering the 125 grams mandated by the prison system’s national menu. When staff found a slightly bigger utensil, it didn’t satisfy kitchen workers and they did not return to work the following Monday, Dec. 12.
On Dec. 13, the warden signed a memo committing to efforts to find ways to improve oversight of food quality and portions and general working conditions in the kitchen.
But the inmate representatives were not satisfied and came back Dec. 14 with a new demand: “double portions of protein.” The warden said this was not possible as menus were set nationally. The warden was also told inmates were fed up with their diminished purchasing power.
That afternoon, ranges were opened up so inmates could proceed to their work programs. But some of the inmates in the E and F corridors refused. Correctional officers attempted to get them to return to their cells, but they ignored orders to lock up.
At 1: 25 p. m., inmates in the E3 and E4 ranges covered their faces with balaclavas and began to smash appliances, blocked or broke surveillance cameras and erected a barricade using fridges, washing machines, beds, sheets, cables and other items. Similar disturbances broke out in the
E1, E2 and F4 ranges.
Some inmates began setting objects on fire and threw them out cell windows.
At 3: 40 p. m., the deputy warden read the Riot Act proclamation over the prison’s intercom system, warning inmates they could face additional prison time for participating in a riot.
It had little deterrent effect.
The warden signed a document that authorized staff to take progressive measures to regain control of the facility, including the use of restraints, batons, shields, breaching equipment, chemical agents, grenades and firearms.
At 4: 35 p. m., ERT members began to breach the barriers to the E3 and E4 ranges.
“Orders to cease and desist their activities and warnings that chemical munitions and lethal force could be used were made, to no avail,” the report said.
As they pushed through, they deployed tear gas and then marched down the corridors in riot formation.
Some i nmates threw chunks of concrete or metal and metal chairs. Others charged at them using bed frames and mattresses as shields.
In response, the ERT members used a variety of weapons and distraction devices to push the inmates back, in some cases firing at the ground or the walls to create “bounce shots.” ( Though the specific weapons used were redacted in this section of the report, other parts of the report confirm that shotguns were part of the arsenal. The prison watchdog later noted several inmates were injured after being hit by shotgun pellets.)
As they got to the back of the range, ERT members deployed pepper spray and used physical force to drive inmates into their cells. Most inmates complied, except for three who lay prone on the floor and were handcuffed.
The ERT members went through similar confrontations in the F4 corridor.
At 6:30 p.m. the ERT members moved to the E1 and E2 ranges.
“While the barricade was being cleared, inmates threw debris … such as chunks of concrete and tried to stab at the ERT with broom sticks with sharpened metal taped to the ends,” the report said.
The ERT members fired more warning shots down the corridor, which was dark and filled with smoke. Spotlights were activated.
A couple of inmates who had been assaulted prior to the riot squad’s arrival were found in their cells and taken away for treatment. A third inmate, Jason Bird, who was serving time for property offences, was found lying in the fetal position in his cell.
Two officers carried or dragged his limp body out of the corridor. Due to the amount of blood, they struggled to get a firm grip on him. At one point one of the officers tripped and Bird fell on top of him.
A nurse could not find a pulse and they began to perform CPR as they whisked him away on a stretcher to an ambulance. He was declared dead a short time later.
Throughout the incident, teams raced from one location to another to put out spot fires.
Meanwhile, ERT members continued to work to quell the rioters.
“Chemical agents, impact munitions and firearms were again used to gain control of the inmates,” the report said.
Finally at 7:25 p.m., order was restored and the prison was deemed secure.
The entire tactical response was videotaped; however the quality of the footage was poor as the person filming had the camera pointed at the floor or the backs of officers much of the time.
After the riot, investigators learned some inmates had created a “hit list” and that Bird, 43, may have been targeted for refusing to participate in the riot or because he did not take part in the earlier work stoppage. Investigators learned that his assailants had attacked him with metal bars, pipes and legs from metal beds and then burned their clothes in the fire.
Three of five inmates charged with killing Bird have since been convicted and two have trials next year. At the sentencing hearing for one of the men, the judge described the swarming attack as “violent, vicious and relentless.”
“No mother should ever mourn a child. No sister or brother should bury a sibling,” Bird’s mother, Evelyn Bird, reportedly said in her victim- impact statement. “I forgive you for murdering my son.”
The CSC’S internal report, meanwhile, concluded the riot was spontaneous and could not have been predicted. While the kitchen walkout was a “proximal precipitating event,” the riot was “unrelated to food quality/quantity” and the prison’s management of inmate complaints did not contribute to the riot, the report said.
But Zinger, the prison watchdog, released a report in fall 2017 with a different conclusion. Prison riots are not random; instead “a lot must go wrong, and for quite some time, before a prison erupts in violence,” he wrote. In this case, inmate dissatisfaction over food and pay for kitchen workers appeared to have been “triggering events.”
The CSC subsequently published a case summary on its website in March 2018 acknowledging that multiple factors, including work and food- related issues, “may have created riot preconditions.”
“The catalytic event that could have sparked the riot was the kitchen walkouts.”
The CSC’S markedly differing accounts of the riot, Zinger wrote in his 2018 annual report, “point to underlying transparency and credibility issues with respect to how CSC investigates itself.”
Zinger went on to highlight a significant blind spot in CSC’S internal report: the rioters were overwhelmingly young, Indigenous and linked to gangs. Eighteen of the 21 “principal instigators” were Indigenous and 11 were gang-affiliated.
“Despite this demographic profile, the underlying Indigenous composition and gang dynamics of the riot were not assessed by the Board, nor subsequently by the Service,” Zinger wrote.
“Presumably, these young men were fed up enough to incite, instigate or participate in an incident that could result in a maximum sentence of life imprisonment; yet there is no serious or sustained attempt on CSC’S part to investigate why.”
Rioux, the CSC spokeswoman, maintained in her statement this week there were “no pre- incident indicators, security intelligence information or population management issues that could have predicted ( the riot).” That said Saskatchewan Penitentiary has made it a priority to address food issues. Inmates who feel they require more nutrients than the national menu provides can request a nutritional assessment by a dietitian, who may make adjustments, she wrote.
Rioux added other corrective measures have been taken, including training staff on the use of video recording equipment.