No need for apology from London police
When a person apologizes, it’s implied that they did something wrong.
That’s why, if you’ve heard anything about the recent laying of sex assault charges against five men who played for Team Canada in the world juniors in 2018, you might have the impression that the London Police Service is utterly incompetent. Finally, six years after police first interviewed the complainant, the matter has now started its journey through the courts. The average headline contains a damning phrase: “Police apologize.”
“London police apologize to woman at centre of 2018 sexual assault investigation,” wrote Sportsnet. Then, from CP24: “Police chief in London apologizes to complainant in hockey case.”
The Canadian Press even contacted apology experts (professors of law and youth studies) to weigh in on all the ways police flubbed it. Upon taking a closer look, though, that doesn’t appear to be the case.
The apology at the heart of these stories was uttered by London police chief Thai Truong in a 45-minute-long news conference: “I want to extend, on behalf of the London Police Service, my sincerest apology to the victim to her family for the amount of time that it had has taken to reach this point.”
Police had opened a criminal investigation in 2018, closed it for lack of evidence in 2019 and watched news of the subsequent lawsuit in May 2022 (the complainant sued Hockey Canada, the league and eight players). The file was reopened in July 2022, and, in 2024, the fruits of this second investigation were substantial enough to warrant charges for five of the players allegedly involved (four of these had since joined the NHL).
The complainant’s civil lawsuit was settled back in 2022, but the criminal proceeding is just in its infancy. Court documents indicate that the complainant was filmed on video saying, “It was all consensual,” but police contend that she did not consent to sexual acts with the group and was prevented from leaving the hotel room multiple times. A trial date has yet to be set, and if it reaches that point, prosecutors will have to show that the men are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to prove guilt.
At the news conference, police apologized for the six years it took to lay charges — but not the investigation itself. Pressed for the reason the investigation was reopened in 2022, Truong, who wasn’t in charge back then, said, “It is my understanding that information came to light as a result of the community.” (Emphasis mine.)
Police then reviewed the file, re-examined initial investigative steps and found new information.
“As a result, we have found sufficient grounds to charge five adult males with sexual assault,” said Truong.
Similar details were offered by Det.-sgt. Katherine Dann, the head of the sexual assault unit.
“Upon review of the occurrence it was determined that there were additional steps that could be taken to advance the investigation. As a result, the investigation was reopened and a team of investigators were assigned,” Dann said.
“Our team explored investigative opportunities in addition to the 2018 investigation. Those leads were followed, additional witnesses were spoken to and we collected more evidence. I can confirm that some of this evidence was not available when the investigation concluded in 2019.” (Emphasis mine.)
Cryptic. The police were otherwise tight-lipped, and much of the probing by reporters in attendance didn’t turn up any more details. What we did hear, though, doesn’t exactly point to wrongdoing. It hints that, somewhere between the investigation’s closing and perhaps after its re-emergence in the news years later, someone somewhere offered police a snippet of information that helped get the case over the evidential hump.
JUSTICE AND TRANSPARENCY ARE OFTEN AT ODDS.
Whether that snippet was necessary is unclear. It certainly helped, as police credited “the community” for stoking a second round. Incompetence? Perhaps, but it’s also possible that, pre-community tip, those leads didn’t look like leads, and the choice to call off the investigation was reasonable based on what was known at the time. Resources aren’t infinite.
If there is a police error here, it might just come down to bad communication. Police, unwilling to apologize to the complainant for the investigation (which would throw their investigative team under the bus), and still wanting to express sympathy for the delay (lest they face a slew of systemic misogyny accusations), came up with a Franken-apology in hope of dodging both holes: sorry for the delay.
This has proven to be the opposite of agile. Predictably, some observers are outraged while others are apprehensive of whether an apology was in order. Predictably, experts have deemed the sorry substandard because not enough information was disclosed. They wanted police to explain in more detail why it took so long to lay charges, and these details aren’t being released to preserve the case before the courts (and perhaps any investigation into those who have not been charged to date).
Justice and transparency are often at odds, and at this stage of the prosecution, they’re pretty much impossible to achieve. Mindful of hockey’s reputation for office sexual misconduct, and mindful of policing’s reputation for not taking sexual assault seriously, London police tried to deliver the next best thing: empathy. If only the message landed.