MJPS Lawyer Lets Slip “False Allegations” Surrounding Terminated Constable
By Robert Thomas
It was just a short 18 minute conference call before hearing officer Jay Watson but it set a legal precedent in Saskatchewan.
As Watson decided he has jurisdiction in the appeal of former Moose Jaw Police Service (MJPS) Constable Alan Murdock.
Murdock is appealing his June 2019 dismissal from the MJPS when he was summarily terminated.
SEE RELATED - Already On Probation
The MJPS had argued that since Murdock was a probationary member he had no right to appeal under the Police Act. Murdock disputed this and said a new member and a long standing member should be treated differently and he should have the right to appeal.
Watson decided he did in fact have jurisdiction setting a legal precedent in the province.
During the tele-conference hearing MJPS's lawyer Destiny Gibney may have let slip some of the allegations surrounding the former constable.
“Mr Murdock has already had discourse to most (of the materials)…an opportunity to view the videos,” Gibney said going on to add some of it dealt with “minors and sexual assault and stuff like that.”
She said the MJPS side could provide the opportunity for Murdock to have access to the remainder of the disclosure.
Murdock is representing himself at the appeal of his dismissal.
“Do you allow for redaction of the names of the victims?” Gibney asked.
Murdock took offense to Gibney making public any allegations surrounding the former MJPS constable.
“Miss Gibney has exposed an allegation when there was no reason to do so,” Murdock said calling it “totally irrelevant” to the hearing.
“For her to slip in a false allegation in this conference call is just pathetic,” Murdock said.
Murdock said he was entitled to all of the disclosure surrounding his dismissal.
Watson agreed saying Murdock was entitled to full disclosure from the MJPS.
“I'm OK with her taking a second look to see what is relevant or not,” Watson said.
Gibney said her side had no problem going through and paring down what is to be used for evidence in Murdock's full appeal hearing.
Murdock said he only wanted disclosure which was relevant to his dismissal.
“I don’t need to read, nor see…anything they are not intent as using for evidence,” he said.
Gibney said the logistics had to be worked out for Murdock to view the videos because of the Covid - 19 pandemic.
Murdock said he was not interested in viewing the videos but wanted transcripts of the videos which he was willing to wait for if necessary.
Watson said he was prepared to set dates of the full dismissal appeal hearing in two weeks time something which Murdock objected to as it would “take significantly more time to go through it (disclosure).”
Watson said from the list of documents of evidence the actual dismissal appeal will be more than a single day hearing.
The hearing was dismissed until May 5th to allow for disclosure at which time discussion could take place about granting more time for Murdock to review the full disclosure and to prepare for the hearing where he is representing himself.