Discipline case hears closing arguments
A cop with ‘tunnel-vision’ or scapegoat for botched McArthur investigation?
A detective with a “one-sided, tunnel-vision view” who failed to thoroughly investigate serial killer Bruce McArthur — or an officer being “scapegoated” for the broader failings of the Toronto police?
The detective who investigated, then swiftly released, McArthur 19 months before his eventual arrest for murder was portrayed in vastly different lights Friday, as the Toronto police disciplinary tribunal heard closing arguments in the highprofile misconduct hearing.
Sgt. Paul Gauthier has pleaded not guilty to neglect of duty and insubordination in connection to his June 20, 2016, investigation into allegations McArthur attempted to strangle a male victim to death during a sexual encounter.
The tribunal has heard that Gauthier released McArthur with no charges after concluding he strangled the man after misreading sexual cues and believing the man wanted it rough. At the time of the interview, McArthur had already killed six men and would go on to kill two more.
In their closing arguments, police prosecutors Alexandra Ciobotaru and Mattison Chinneck described a flawed investigation that fell far short of the expectations laid out in Toronto police domestic violence policy — most importantly, that Gauthier conduct a “thorough” investigation.
When presented with the opposing accounts of McArthur and the victim, Gauthier simply opted not to lay charges rather than investigate further, prosecutors said. He had a “one-sided, tunnel-vision view of the investigation,” Ciobotaru said.
Chinneck pointed to deficiencies including Gauthier’s failure to obtain a video recording of the victim’s statement or even to followup with the victim himself. Instead, the man’s statement was only taking via “memobook,” a written verbatim account by another officer.
“How can you release someone with no charges — someone who tried to strangle his intimate partner to death — without even having spoken to the victim?” Chinneck asked.
Chinneck also criticized Gauthier’s brief video-recorded interview with McArthur, in which relevant questioning lasted just nine minutes — “it’s hard to imagine how a thorough investigation can be conducted in that amount of time,” he said.
These and other failings — including neglecting to take photos of the victim’s injuries 48 to 72 hours after the alleged assault — convincingly show that despite being an experienced domestic violence investigator, Gauthier did not complete crucial, common sense investigative steps, prosecutors said.
“Taken together, there should be no question in this case that a thorough investigation was not completed,” Chinneck said.
In his arguments before the hearing officer, retired Peel Supt. Dave Andrews, Gauthier’s lawyer Lawrence Gridin described the case as a “politically motivated” prosecution brought forward as McArthur was being charged with a growing list of murders — and as criticism of the Toronto police was mounting.
The alarm was first raised about Gauthier’s investigation in late February 2018 — nearly two years after the incident, Gridin said. That same week, then-police chief Mark Saunders faced criticism for an interview with the Globe and Mail in which he suggested a lack of tips from the public meant McArthur had slipped through the cracks. (Ciobotaru said the timing of the charge was due to a new interview with the victim in January 2018).
Gridin said his client was being “scapegoated” and singled out for discipline for conducting an investigation that was “entirely consistent” with the practices in that division at that time. The two specific investigative failures alleged against Gauthier — getting a video statement and taking after-thefact photos of injuries — were not mandatory under the “badly drafted” Toronto police policy, the lawyer said.
The tribunal heard evidence from multiple officers that parts of the domestic violence policy were understood to be discretionary within Gauthier’s division. Although video statements are considered more reliable, one officer said that memo book statements are taken 99 times out of 100, Gridin said.
“The testimony of every single witness in this case was that written statements are routinely done in domestic cases,” he said, noting it would be “inequitable” for the service to discipline Gauthier for something that’s common practice.
Gridin also argued that the alleged assault didn’t fall within the Toronto police domestic violence policy because the incident didn’t meet the threshold.
“In my submission, it’s actually overwhelming evidence that this was a purely casual sex relationship,” Gridin said.
Stressing the hearing was not a “public inquiry,” Gridin said the case was not about whether Gauthier should have laid charges. The law does not require police officers to “turn over every single stone” before determining whether or not there are reasonable grounds to lay a charge, he said.
Based on the specific circumstances of this case, it was reasonable for Gauthier to let McArthur go, Gridin said, in part because he believed McArthur lacked the necessary intent. Another officer may have concluded differently, but it was ultimately within Gauthier’s discretion to decide to let McArthur go, Gridin said.
“Lacking subjective grounds to believe McArthur committed a crime, there was only one way that this could go, which is to let him go. It’s that simple,” Gridin said.
A recent independent review of Toronto police handling of the McArthur case found that investigative flaws meant investigators lost “important” opportunities to stop McArthur sooner.
Ontario Court of Appeal judge Gloria Epstein reviewed Gauthier’s investigation and called his decision to release McArthur, at best, “premature.” It was “well arguable” that the evidence did not support letting McArthur go because there was nothing to suggest the victim had consented to being choked, she wrote. She questioned why Gauthier hadn’t tried to speak to the victim himself.
Andrews reserved his judgment until a later date.
Officers found guilty of professional misconduct can face penalties as serious as dismissal, but the prosecution has said they are not seeking that in this case.