COURTESY TRANSLATION

The DCPP announces that it will not lay charges following the
independent investigation conducted further to the December 28, 2017
incident in Umiujaq, in which a man died

Québec, June 20, 2019 – After examining the report prepared by the Bureau des
enquêtes indépendantes (BEI) on the circumstances surrounding a man's death on
December 28, 2017, in Umiujaq, the Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales
(DPCP) – hereafter referred to the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions
(DCPP) – has concluded that an analysis of the evidence does not show that a
criminal offence was committed by the officers of the Kativik Regional Police Force
(KRPF).

Examination of the investigation report prepared by the BEI was entrusted to two
criminal and penal prosecuting attorneys (prosecutors). They conducted a thorough
examination of the evidence to determine whether any criminal offences were
committed. One of the prosecutors who analyzed the case has met and informed
the relatives of the deceased of the reasons for the decision.

Incident

On December 28, 2017, at around 1:25 p.m., a KRPF officer in Umiujaq received
two arrest warrants for a man.

At around 2:00 p.m., the female officer and a colleague went to the residence where
the man was said to live. They were informed by a resident that the man was not
there. The two officers conducted an investigation, speaking with the person's
acquaintances to find out where he was.

The man was located at another residence. The officers informed him that they had
two arrest warrants for him, and then asked him to follow them so they could arrest
him, which he refused to do. The female officer returned to the police station to get
the required warrant to enter, while the other officer remained on watch outside the
residence until his partner returned.

At 2:33 p.m., the officer saw the man come out of the residence with two large
kitchen knives, one in each hand. He immediately notified his colleague of the
situation. She returned rapidly to the premises and radioed another officer, off duty
at home, to join them. The man then made his way through the streets of the village
with the knives in his hands, followed by the three police officers.

Over a period of almost two hours, the three officers attempted unsuccessfully to
convince the man to put down the knives and surrender peacefully.

During that intervention, the man charged toward the officers several times, still
armed with the knives. He shouted “Shoot me. Shoot me.” a number of times at the
officers. He was aggressive and behaved in a threatening manner with the knives.
He also threatened to attack members of the community. One of the officers used
pepper spray, but without success.
A member of the man's family also tried, in vain, to convince him to surrender to the
police. That person grabbed the man from behind to try to subdue him, which
caused him to drop one of the knives.

The man then became more aggressive toward the three officers. While they were
still trying to get him to surrender, he headed toward a residence and told the
officers that he intended to go and get a firearm. The officers told him that they
would block his access and that, if he continued, they would have to take action to
end the situation.

Still armed with a knife, the man suddenly began running and charged in the
direction of one of the officers. The officers then fired in his direction. The man was
hit by three projectiles.

One of the officers again used pepper spray, as the man was still holding a knife. He
was then transported to the dispensary in Umiujaq, where he was pronounced dead
a short time later.

DCPP Analysis

In this matter, the DCPP is of the opinion that the conditions in section 25 of the
Criminal Code have been satisfied.

That provision affords protection to a peace officer who uses force in the context of
the administration or enforcement of the law
Section 25(1) affords protection to peace officers who use force in the context of the
administration or enforcement of the law, provided they act on reasonable and
probable grounds and use only as much force as is necessary for that purpose.

It may be, in particular, a legal arrest, or actions to disarm someone or to subdue a

person in crisis when their security or that of others may be in danger.

Section 25(3) specifies that an officer may use force intended or likely to cause
death or grievous bodily harm if he or she believes on reasonable grounds that it is
necessary for the self-preservation of the person or the preservation of any one
under that person’s protection from such consequences.

Peace officers are therefore authorized to use force that, under the circumstances,
is reasonable and necessary for the exercise of their functions and is not excessive.

The courts have established that the assessment of force should not be based on a
standard of perfection.

Indeed, police officers are often placed in situations where they must rapidly make
difficult decisions. In that context, they cannot be required to precisely measure the
degree of force applied.

The intervention was legal. When outside the house, the man could be placed under
arrest. For reasons related to safety, he also had to be disarmed when he came out
of the house with the two knives.

As regards the use of force, first of all, the evidence shows that one of the officers
used pepper spray to disarm the man. That force was justified in the circumstances.
Second, the evidence leads to the conclusion that the man was charging toward an
officer when the three officers fired in his direction. In this case, the danger to the
three officers, who were nearby, was real.

The officers involved had reasonable grounds to believe that the use of a firearm
was necessary to protect themselves or their colleagues from death or grievous
bodily harm. Consequently, the use of a firearm by each of the officers is not, in this
case, use of excessive force, and the officers benefit from the legal justification
provided for under article 25 of the Criminal Code.

That section also applies to the use of pepper spray after the shots were fired, when
the man was on the ground and still in possession of a knife.

Consequently, the DCPP is of the opinion that the use of force by the peace officers
was justified under article 25 of the Criminal Code. In the opinion of the DCPP, the
analysis of the evidence does not show that a criminal offence was committed by
the KRPF officers involved in this incident.

Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions

The DCPP provides, on behalf of the State, an independent criminal and penal
prosecution service to ensure the protection of society, in keeping with public
interest and the legitimate interests of victims.

Each case submitted to the DCPP is analyzed in a thorough and impartial manner.
The standard used by prosecutors to decide whether or not to prosecute is found in
directive No. ACC-3. In criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is very
high. Indeed, the principle of the presumption of innocence requires the prosecution
to demonstrate before the court that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt.

Whether or not to prosecute is a discretionary decision made by the prosecutor in

the performance of his or her professional duties, without fear of judicial or political
interference and without yielding to pressure from the media. Moreover, it is not the
prosecutor’s duty to rule on possible civil fault or ethical misconduct. The prosecutor
seeks only a basis for determining whether or not a criminal offence has been
committed, and whether it is possible to prove that offence. In addition, it is not up to
the prosecutor to make comments or recommendations on methods of police
intervention.

The publication of the reasons for a decision not to lay charges in certain cases is
an exceptional measure and is based on guidelines.