Halton police fail to tell public of arrested officer

Constable faces assault charges

Criminal charges against a Halton police constable accused of assault have not been disclosed to the public by the service.

The Halton Regional Police Service refused to confirm or comment on three charges laid against Const. Tara Roszell by Brantford police, refused to say if she is suspended from duty, and only shared its media policy related to officers facing criminal charges after being asked repeatedly by The Spectator.

“The release of information on matters pertaining to officers that occur outside of our region is at the discretion of that jurisdiction’s police service,” corporate communicator Julie Rolph said in an email. “When a sworn member is charged with a criminal offence within Halton

Region, the relevant information concerning the offence(s) and the member may be proactively released.”

Compare that to the policy of neighbouring Hamilton police: “Without exception, when a police officer is charged with a criminal offence, the relevant information pertaining to the charge will be proactively released to the media.”

The London Police Service says when one of its officers is charged with a criminal offence “the information in relation to the charge is released to the public by way of media release.”

Niagara police say “unless covered by a publication ban, it is our practice to issue a media release if a sworn member is charged criminally by our service. We typically specify on or off duty, and years of service.”

“By policy and practice, we issue a media release on any sworn officer who is criminally charged,” says the Ottawa Police Service. “The release includes the name of the officer, their rank and the charges. The exception to this would be a court order preventing the naming of the officer or a matter where naming the officer would identify the alleged victim.”

The Brantford Police Service says it does not include the names of individuals charged “unless determined to be necessary for investigative/public safety purposes.”

There is no publication ban in Roszell’s matter.

The policies of individual police services vary in Ontario, ranging from full transparency to very little. Meanwhile the province’s Special Investigations Unit, which probes all allegations of death, serious injury or sexual assault caused by police officers — usually while on duty, has a policy to release the names of all officers charged with criminal offences.

It is the job of police to uphold the law. If an officer is facing criminal charges — particularly those alleging violence — transparency is necessary to maintain accountability and public trust.

Police officers should be held to a higher standard of scrutiny due to the power they wield over the public. Keeping the identity of a charged officer secret prevents the public from fully understanding public servants entrusted with a badge and a gun.

And a police service that does not even reveal that an officer has been charged with a crime — even if the officer is not named due to a publication ban — prevents the public from assessing any systemic problems that might exist in the organization.

Ultimately, shielding police from public scrutiny when criminal charges are laid prevents the public from seeing that justice is done.

On Feb. 20, Brantford police charged Roszell, 43, of Brantford, with assault.

The next day, she was charged again by Brantford police with assault with a weapon, in connection to the same victim. According to court documents, the weapon was “the truck door.”

On March 14, Brantford police once again charged her with assault on the same victim.

While the identity of the victim appears on the court documents, The Spectator has chosen not to publish that information.

Attempts to reach Roszell have been unsuccessful. She is to appear in court April 18.

Ultimately, shielding police from public scrutiny when criminal charges are laid prevents the public from seeing that justice is done