Get the police out of politics and politics out of the police #nlpoli

They just don’t look like recruiting ads.

That’s the most striking thing about a series of television ads airing in Newfoundland and Labrador.

There’s no sense of an invitation to come and join the group.  At least, there’s nothing of that in the images themselves.

Consider the number of shots that have the police facing the camera.  The effect puts the viewer in an adversarial position, especially when faced with the tactical team or the riot team in these shots, above and right.

The only place you see the invitation is in the last image, a graphic that looks like this:

Now you get why these ads aren’t really about recruiting.

See it?

Not quite the same situation

Curious to see Here and Now running a clip of Don Jamieson returning to lead the Liberal party in 1979 after Bill Rowe resigned.

It’s not quite the same situation as the one Liberals and others in the political world are facing today.

Kathy Dunderdale is no Brian Peckford, for starters.

And that is a sentence easily nominated for understatement of the millennium.

But while Yvonne Jones is stepping down as Liberal leader for health reasons, Liberal leader Bill Rowe left politics – thereby opening the job for Jamieson - after figuring prominently in one of the biggest political scandals in the province’s history.

- srbp -

The Elizabeth Towers Fire Inquiry - Recommendations

Continued from Part 4 – The Question of Justification

When a fire occurs certain options are open to investigating and law enforcement bodies in the Province.  Under Section 8 of The Fire Prevention Act [link is to the RSN 1990 version of the Act] an investigation must be carried out by local or special assistants to the Fire Commissioner where property has been destroyed or damaged by fire.  That investigation is made "for the purpose of ascertaining whether the fire was the result of negligence, carelessness, accident or design".  That, presumably, was the form of investigation which was begun promptly after the fire in Elizabeth Towers took place.  An investigation can lead to the filing of a formal complaint under the Criminal Code, and to a prosecution for arson.  That was what did happen in this case.

Two other methods of enquiry are available for the investigation of the cause of a fire.  One method is in accordance with Section 126 of The Summary Jurisdiction Act, as amended by The Summary Jurisdiction (Amendment) Act, 1971.[See note below]  Subsections (1), (2) and (4) read:

(1) Subject to this section, whenever any property is damaged or destroyed by fire, the magistrate exercising jurisdiction in the district where the fire occurred or any other magistrate or any justice designated by the Minister of Justice may conduct an enquiry to ascertain the cause or origin of the fire, and shall conduct such enquiry if directed to do so by the Director of Public Prosecutions. 

(2) A magistrate or justice conducting an enquiry under this section has and may exercise all of the powers conferred on a Commissioner by Section 3 of The Public Enquiries Act.
(4) Every magistrate or justice conducting an enquiry under this section shall, as soon as practicable after the completing of the enquiry, send a report to the Attorney General stating in particular his opinion as to the cause of the fire and whether it appears to have been of incendiary origin and shall forward with the report all of the evidence taken by him at the enquiry.

The other method available is under Section 22 of The Fire Prevention Act.  Subsections (1), (2), (3) and (7) read:

(1) Subject to the approval of the Minister, the Fire Commissioner, or any other person designated by the Minister, may hold an enquiry into the cause, origin, extent and circumstances of any fire, and the approval of the. Minister required by this subsection may be given generally in respect of all fires occurring in a prescribed area or particularly in respect of a specified fire. 

(2) For the purposes of an enquiry under this section, the Fire Commissioner or person directed to hold the enquiry may with the approval of the Minister employ such legal, technical, scientific, clerical or other assistance as he may deem necessary. 

(3) When holding an enquiry under this section, the Fire Commissioner or the person directed to hold the enquiry shall have all of the powers conferred on a Commissioner by Section 3 of The Public Enquiries Act. 

(7) Every person who holds an enquiry under this section shall, ,as soon as practicable after the completion of the enquiry, send a report to the Attorney General stating in particular his opinion as to the cause of the fire and whether it appears to have been of incendiary origin and shall forward with the report all of the evidence taken by him at the enquiry.

In considering the procedure followed in the investigation of the Elizabeth Towers fire we must do so in the light of evidence available at the time, not from the vantage point of the hindsight which this Enquiry has.  As the police investigation proceeded it appeared that the fire had been deliberately set, that is, that the offence of arson had been committed. Under those circumstances, the procedure followed was a quite proper one for it would likely lead to the laying of charges under the Criminal Code of Canada and, ultimately, to a trial.  Quite understandably, it would appear at that time that any other form of enquiry would not be necessary. 

Indeed, while an enquiry could have been carried on, it would have been of doubtful propriety, for it could have been prejudicial to a fair trial, particularly if an accused elected trial by jury.  It is a matter of record that a charge was brought against Dr. Farrell, that he elected trial by judge and jury and that at the conclusion of a preliminary enquiry the charge was dismissed.  There is now no reason why an enquiry should not be held under The Summary Jurisdiction Act or under The Fire Prevention Act. An enquiry under either of those Acts could be more comprehensive than the preliminary enquiry because evidence which could not be called at the preliminary enquiry could be called at an enquiry under The Summary Jurisdiction Act or The Fire Prevention Act.

I therefore recommend that the Honourable the Minister of Justice take such initiative as may be open to him to cause an enquiry to be held under either The Summary Jurisdiction Act or The Fire Prevention Act.
Dated at Corner Brook in the Province of Newfoundland the 16th day of August, 1979

//signed//
P. LLOYD SOPER, D.C.J.
COMMISSIONER

-srbp-

NOTE:  The Summary Jurisdiction Act was replaced in 1979 by the Summary Proceedings Act.

Section 22 of the Summary Proceedings Act states:

Fire inquiry

22. Where property is damaged or destroyed by fire, a judge may hold an inquiry to ascertain the cause or origin of the fire, and shall hold that inquiry on direction of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Section 25 confers on a judge in such an inquiry the powers of a commissioner under the Public Inquiries Act. This continues the powers under the section of the former Act cited by Soper. Likewise section 30 details the report to be made to the Attorney general at the conclusion of an inquiry.

The Elizabeth Towers Fire Inquiry – The Question of Justification

Continued from Part 3 – The Release of the Reports of the Investigation

Paragraph (1) (b) of the Terms of Reference of this Commission of Enquiry requires me to consider and report upon the justification, if any, for the release, transmission, duplication, delivery and publication of the two reports.

According to the evidence it appears that Pike concluded [not a quote in original]

(a) that the investigation into the cause of the fire at Elizabeth Towers had provided enough evidence to justify the laying of a charge of arson against the Honourable Dr. Thomas Farrell, but 

(b) that the charge would not be laid because Farrell was a member of the Cabinet of the Province of Newfoundland.

Pike's conclusions appear to have a certain emotional basis.  He had been taken off the investigation because of his indiscretion in discussing it with the Premier's secretary and he was upset on that account.  He appeared, too, to have the idea that he was being persecuted, as shown in his allegation to William Rowe that "Alec Hickman (the Minister of Justice) was out to get him".  It appears to me that at the time Pike was not in that emotional state which would enable him to take a completely objective view of the investigation.  Indeed, his approach brings into question his usefulness as an investigating officer.

The conclusions which Pike arrived at were not of such substance as to justify his releasing the reports.  Pike based his action on two reports.  He knew that the investigation was continuing.  He also knew or expected that charges were going to be laid against Dr. Farrell.  After all, that was the message which he apparently wanted to pass to the Premier.

Throughout the period leading up to the laying of charges against Dr. Farrell on October 16th, 1978 there was emphasis placed on what appeared to be unwarranted delay in the laying of the charges. In any given case, the answer to the question of whether there is delay depends upon that particular case and upon such variable factors as the nature of the alleged offence, the existence and extent of the evidence which shows that an offence was committed, the existence and extent of the evidence which indicates the perpetrator. The law officers of the Crown who are responsible for conducting a prosecution must go beyond the question of whether they can establish a prime facie case.  They must consider whether they can show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  Belief in the guilt of an accused is one thing.  Proving it beyond a reasonable doubt' is another.  Therein lies a difference between the attitudes which police investigators and crown prosecutors may adopt.

There is no doubt that criminal investigations should be concluded as quickly as possible and charges should be laid without delay, but the prosecutor must be concerned with proof that will meet the tests applied under the rules of evidence and of criminal procedure.  In the investigation of the Elizabeth Towers fire, the Crown officers, who had a better perspective than Pike could have, who were more competent professionally to assess the evidence from the point of view of laying charges, considered that there were matters not dealt with adequately in the first two reports.  They sought and received two further reports and then laid a charge against Dr. Farrell.

Pike had no real grounds for concluding that charges would not be laid against Dr. Farrell,  He did not produce any evidence of substance that would support his conclusion beyond the casual conversation which he had with Kelly.  In reality, Macaulay, as I have already shown, indicated on or about July 3lst that he wanted to lay charges against Dr. Farrell.  That suggests to me that in the Department of Justice there was a wish to get on with the matter rather than to procrastinate. In this regard I must note that in answer to a direct question Macaulay stated at the Enquiry that the Minister of Justice had not interfered with the work of the Departmental officers dealing with the investigation, that there had not been any political interference.

There was no evidence that any attempt was made to protect Dr. Farrell from prosecution.  Pike's allegation that there was a "cover-up" was a product of his own imagination and suspicions.  There was no justification for his releasing the police reports to William Rowe or to any other person.

If there was no justification for Pike's actions there was still less for those of William Rowe.  He was dissatisfied with what appeared to be delays in the completion of the investigation and with the absence of any prosecutions.  He had concluded that the investigation might go on and on but that nothing would ever develop from it, that there would never be any prosecution.  He had no solid foundation for that conclusion and no substantive evidence.  As in the case of Pike's conclusions, they did not coincide with what was actually happening behind the scenes, that is, that the Deputy Minister of Justice had been pressing to bring the investigation to the point where charges might be laid,  Rowe seems to have allowed himself to become the victim of rumour or speculation, For example, at one point in his evidence he said:

"... Talking to people casually around, the impression that I arrived at was that there was going to be an on-going investigation forever and ever and ever in the case."

As a person in public life, he should have been sensitive to the fact that others will exaggerate descriptions of what public figures do, that there is a popular belief that prominant [sic] citizens are above the law.  Added to that, he recognized that Pike, who alleged that a "cover-up" was going on, was visibly disturbed when they met.  From his description of Pike's condition, which I have already related, he should certainly have been put on his caution and should not have jeopardized his own reputation by dealing with Pike as he did.  No matter how William Rowe may attempt to justify his conduct in accepting and releasing the reports he did not provide any grounds on which to justify his conduct.

I am not ignoring the concern which Rowe expressed about the safety of tenants in the Elizabeth Towers Apartments.  I would not for one moment doubt that concern.  Indeed, I would go beyond expressing concern about the origin of one fire and I would want to go further than simply wanting to know who, if anybody, caused it.

A fire in any building occupied by a large number of tenants raises many questions which can go to such basic considerations as design and materials used. To what extent have fire resistant materials been used?
Can the spread of fire or smoke or both be controlled or diminished?  What alarm systems exist?  What emergency exits are there?  What fire fighting equipment is on the premises?  Do residents know what to do in the event of fire or an alarm of fire?  What security is maintained on the building? How efficiently can municipal fire fighters work in dealing with a fire?  I am not suggesting that the answers to these and other possible questions would reflect poorly on the operation of the Elizabeth Towers but I do say that anxiety arising out of the fire on April 26th, 1978 should extend to those concerns if any investigation is to be of greatest benefit to the residents.  Indeed, a complete investigation directed at such questions as those I have raised may result in improvements in safety features in the building in question and in the construction and use of other buildings as well.

Related to the question of justification is one other direction given to me by paragraph (l)(c) of my Terms of Reference.  It requires me to enquire into and report upon what should have been done with copies of the reports by those into whose possession they came and what action, if any, should be taken against them.
When the reports were released the investigation into the fire had not been completed, notwithstanding any opinion which Pike may have had to the contrary. At the same time, it was likely that a criminal charge would be laid against Dr. Farrell.

While a suspected crime is being investigated the information which the police have gathered should be treated as confidential in the interest of the investigation itself and in the interest of suspects. Improper release of information could alert a suspect, enabling him to tamper with evidence or to provide himself with a defence or otherwise frustrate the investigation.  Conversely, release of information from an incompleted investigation could implicate a suspect who might later in the investigation be shown to be innocent.  As a matter of fact, in the investigation of the Elisabeth Towers fire it appears that there was one person who was suspected of some involvement but who was cleared of suspicion during the investigation.

When a role is changed, so that a suspect becomes an accused, he should then know what case he has to answer at his trial.  If he has an election and elects to be tried by a judge sitting with a jury, his right to a fair trial should not be prejudiced by the release of information which might not be admissible as evidence at his trial.  In other words, he should not be pre-judged by public opinion.  He is entitled to a trial by a jury whose members have not already been influenced by what they have heard or read in news reports.  There is today a great deal of emphasis on "the right to know" but the right to a fair trial is equally great, if not greater, for it deals with liberty of the subject.  Insofar as a trial is concerned, the "right to know" is recognized in the requirements that trials be public.

In the release of the reports of the Elizabeth Towers investigation, Pike conducted himself in a manner unbecoming to a member of a police force. He was reduced in rank from a detective sergeant to a patrol sergeant, with a consequent reduction in the rate of salary.  He considered that he was "severely punished", to use his own description of the consequences of his actions, but in my view he was treated leniently. His conduct would have justified dismissal.

Only one factor would influence my view as to the action which should have been taken against Pike, and that is the fact that at the present time no penalties appear to exist which could be imposed on William Rowe who caused the reports to be distributed. Pike's conduct was inexcusable but Rowe's conduct was equally inexcusable.  When he received the reports from Pike he should have turned them over to the Chief of Police, as some of the news editors did. If he was not prepared to do that, the least he might have done was point out to Pike the impropriety of what he was doing and refuse to accept the reports.

I refrain from commenting further on what action, if any, might be taken insofar as publication of the reports or any portion of them is concerned because I understand that civil actions may be pending in respect of some of those to whom information was given.

Next - Recommendations

-srbp-

The Elizabeth Towers Fire Inquiry – the Release of the Reports of the Investigation

Continued from Part 2 – The Elizabeth Towers Fire and its Investigation

I must now turn to the evidence relating directly to the release of the reports of June 7th and July 12th to the news media.  That evidence was given by Sergeant Pike and Mr. William Rowe who, at that time, was the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in the House of Assembly of the Province.  This part of the enquiry deals also with the question of whether there was justification for the release of the reports.

Pike said that on the basis of the reports of June 7th and July 12th he "felt that there was reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a criminal act had been committed".

Pike was removed from the investigation because of a conversation which he had with Mrs. Nugent who was then the private secretary to the Premier-of the Province.  The conversation took place when he was flying to St. Anthony after he had been recalled from his vacation on or about August 1st in order to give Inspector Randell whatever information he had about the investigation.  Pike was asked what he was supposed to have said to Mrs. Nugent that resulted in his.being removed from the investigation.  He said:

"I was accused by Inspector Randell when I came back off my annual leave of telling her that Dr. Farrell was going to be charged and accused me of asking to see the Premier".

He said that it was alleged that ho had disclosed part of the contents of the report,  lie war; ached whether the charge was accurate and gave the following somewhat enlightening reply:

"Not completely.  Partially, I suppose.  I did speak to Mrs. Nugent and Dr. Farrell's name did come up briefly at the airport before we left. I attempted to explain this to Inspector Randall.  However, I think his mind had already been made up to transfer me or somebody made it up for him.  He didn't ask me what happened.  I tried to explain to him but he didn't appear to want to listen."

The one thing which appears from this evidence is Pike's apparent tendency to indiscretion in discussing police matters with unauthorized persons - an undesirable trait in a police officer.  Understandably, Pike was upset because he was taken off the Elizabeth Towers fire investigation, even though it was through his own fault.
 
Pike was asked what his mental and physical state was at that time.  He said:

"... I was concerned about this investigation and because of remarks made to me and I was at times nervous - or probably "frightened" would be the word - during the investigation."

Pike said that he had been upset by several remarks which the Director of Public Prosecutions had made to him.  He said that the first occasion on which Kelly made remarks to him was approximately two weeks after the investigation started. 

At that time, Randell told him that Kelly wanted to see him alone and unofficially about the Elizabeth' Towers fire. As a result, he saw Kelly who told him that he wanted to be brought up to date because the Minister of Justice was going out of town and might want to be brought up to date.  He brought Kelly up to date, telling him that the police suspected arson.

I must observe that I do not see that there was anything sinister about Kelly's enquiry.  The investigation was still going on and Pike was not conducting it himself, so he would not be in a position to make a full, official report.  On the other hand, he could be expected to have some idea of how it was progressing.  It would not be unusual for the Director of Public Prosecutions to look for some advance information such as he sought.

Then, too, he might well expect the Minister to show some interest in the investigation under all the circumstances. On the other hand, the mere possibility of the Minister's asking a question should not be interpreted as indicating some ulterior motive on his part or on Kelly's part. Pike's reaction suggests a somewhat exaggerated interpretation of Kelly's enquiry.

Pike related another conversation which he suggested upset him and, I should think, was intended to reflect on Kelly but which, in my view, reflects on Pike instead. Here is his evidence verbatim:

"Yes, there was another conversation with Mr. Kelly.  I don't recall the exact time but I mentioned to him during the conversation about the fire ... 'You know, John, your name was mentioned during the investigation’… and he said: 'In what way?', and I said: 'Do you know anybody by the name of Doucette?' and he said: 'Jerry Doucette? Yes, I do.  He is a very good friend of mine .. . The, Farrell family are also good friends of mine and I have been to Dr. Farrell's apartment on a number of occasions ... For that reason … I am not going to get involved in this investigation’ ".

There was nothing unusual in Kelly's decision not to be involved in the investigation if he was a friend of Dr. Farrell or of members of his family.  That is the kind of conflict which arises on occasion and a person who must remain objective follows the discreet course of dissociating himself from some activity in which his participation might be questioned because of social or business associations.

Pike said that he found it unusual that Kelly then did not discontinue his involvement in the matter, even though he admitted that as Director of Public Prosecutions Kelly would have to have some involvement.  The answer to Pike's concern, though, is found in the fact that the responsibility for the handling of the file for the Department of Justice was given to Robert Hyslop, Senior Crown Prosecutor in St. John's.  The significant aspect about this part of Pike's evidence is that it provides one more example of some form of obsession which he seems to have developed.

Pike related another episode which he alleged caused him concern.  He said that before the first report was made he was talking to Kelly when they were on route to Harbour Grace in connection with another matter. Pike said:

"... He asked me when he was going to get the report on it and I said to him jokingly 'I don't know, John boy.  Probably we may make an arrest first and give you a report afterwards'.  It was a joke as far as I was concerned.  But he said 'Don't arrest Dr. Farrell.  If you do, I'll ask for a stay of prosecution. The Minister has to be notified first before any charges are laid’."

Pike said that he was being facetious but he did not think that Kelly was being facetious as well, that Kelly appeared quite serious.  Kelly did not recollect details of that conversation.  It seems to me that Pike was in a mental state which caused him to exaggerate to himself the implications of anything said or done in connection with the Elizabeth Towers fire investigation. Even if the conversation was as he said it was, it must be remembered that the Minister of Justice, as Attorney General of the Province, had the ultimate responsibility for the administration of justice, and would be within the bounds of his responsibility if he wanted to be,kept advised about the investigation, charges arising out if it and so on.  As a senior police officer, Pike would be expected to appreciate that.  I shall refer again to the role of the Minister of Justice in this matter.

I have no doubt that Pike was upset when he felt that lie had been removed from the investigation because he had spoken to Mrs. Nugent about the investigation.

Pike had access to the reports which had been filed and at some point made a copy of the report of June 7th and the one of July 12th,  When he made them he did so because he might need to refer to them in the course of his work and it would be more convenient to have them at hand.  He put them in his filing cabinet, where he left them for a while.  Then he took them home one night to read them and left them there.  I come now to the release of those reports by Pike.

Pike said that he "felt that there was the possibility of a cover-up going on at the time ... because of the remarks by Mr. Kelly ... and also the fact that the investigation was being dragged out so long".  That was his opinion and he felt that he was not alone in holding that opinion.  He also felt that there was a cover-up going on because "other investigative reports where action was recommended had gone to the proper channels to the Department of Justice where no action was taken".  When he was asked who made the final decision as to whether charges were laid, Pike said that as far as he was concerned it was the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Pike was asked to be specific about the other investigations to which he referred and he provided details of them.  The Director of Public Prosecutions" was, in turn,asked to state what, action had been taken in each case. He did so.  In each instance he was able to give an acceptable reason for not prosecuting.  The only possible criticism that may be made was the failure of the Department to ensure that the police knew why the prosecutions had not been proceeded with.

At some point Pike decided that he was going to reveal information about the fire investigation and what he described as the cover-up.  On September 16th, 1978 he telephoned James Thoms, Editor [sic] of the Daily News, a newspaper published in St. John's, and said that he had some information for Thoms.  He asked Thoms if he would come to his house and Thorns went.  He showed Thoms the copies of the June 7th and July 12th reports. Thorns read them, made notes of them and left.  Thoms consulted with William Callahan, the publisher of the Daily News.  Callahan telephoned Macaulay and indicated that the Daily News had the two reports.  He asked Macaulay if charges had been laid and, if not, when they would be laid,  Macaulay said that he told Callahan that he did not know.  Indeed, he did not know whether charges would ever be laid.  Macaulay told the enquiry that at that point the investigation was still going on, that he was awaiting a final report, and that a firm decision had not been made about whether charges would be laid.

Thoms said that the Daily News published a story about the investigation on Thursday, September 21st. The paper did not use the name of Dr. Farrell in the story because, initially, the publishers were influenced by the fact that the conclusions in the report were police opinions.

Thoms said that Pike gave him the information on condition that he would not divulge the source. (Incidentally, at the enquiry Thoms gave his evidence after Pike admitted that he showed the reports to Thorns.) There was no mention of any prohibition on publication. That is significant in assessing Pike's evidence in which he said that when he gave the reports to William Rowe he "had no idea that the reports would be leaked to the news media".

A week after his meeting with Thoms, Pike went a step further in disclosing the reports of June 7th and July 12th.  He decided that he was going to give information to a member of the House of Assembly.  He admitted that he did not go to anybody in the Newfoundland Constabulary senior to Inspector Randell.  When pressed on the point he further admitted that when he decided that he was going to go through political channels he had not exhausted all of the resources within the Constabulary to bring pressure to bear to have a prosecution go ahead.

He intended at first to speak to Edward Roberts, a solicitor and member of the House of Assembly. On Saturday, September 23rd, 1978, he telephoned William Rowe, the leader of the Opposition in the House of Assembly and asked him for Roberts' private telephone number.  Rowe could not provide the number. Then Pike asked Rowe if he could come to Pike's home because he would like to talk to Rowe about a cover-up involved in regard to the investigation of the Elizabeth Towers fire.  The first thing that is quite clear in respect of the communication with Rowe, as well as with Thorns, is that Pike took the initiative, that nobody sought him out or tried to get information from him.

Rowe went to Pike's house and picked him up. They drove around St. John's while Pike talked. In reporting the conversation Rowe said:

"... he was talking to me about a cover-up, about the fact that the investigation into the Elizabeth Towers fire ... because he knew there was a cover-up and footdragging [sic] going on.  He indicated ... to use his own words ... that 'Alec Hickman was out to get him' and he had been removed from the case.  He indicated that there were a couple of incidents ... early in August ... whereby he may have divulged some information and that this may have also led to his dismissal from the case as an investigator ... I asked Sergeant Pike ...Do you have copies of the report?'  He indicated that he did ... I said: 'May I have a look at them’ and he said 'No.'  I said to him 'Well, you obviously must have leaked it to the Daily News … He vehemently denied having leaked it ... We talked generally and it had to do generally with the cover-up, with the fact that nothing is going to happen on this particular report and this investigation ... I then … dropped him off at his home again."

Rowe was asked to describe Pike's condition at the time of the meeting.  He said Pike gave the appearance of being intoxicated and yet he did not smell any liquor off his breath.  Pike in his own evidence said that he had had a couple of drinks before he met Rowe but that he was not under the influence of alcohol.  Rowe said that Pike could have been under medication, that he was "somewhat incoherent". There may be significance in the rest of Rowe's description of Pike's behaviour.  It could provide an insight into his emotional state and into the reason for his conduct. Rowe said that Pike

"... was alternately aggressive and unaggressive ... in his actions and attitudes".

Rowe said that he asked Pike why he was in that condition at that time.  Rowe went on:

"... he told me that he was under a considerable amount of stress and strain, that he had been removed from the case, that Alex Hickman was out to get him, that there was a cover-up going on and that he was under severe strain.  He indicated obliquely that he was under a doctor's care as well at the time ... He appeared to be very upset... It was an aggressive attitude and also, concerning the Department of Justice  concerning the authorities,  and also on occasion he would become almost self-pitying in his attitudes, he would, you know, say 'They're out to get me', that kind of an attitude".

It must have been quite apparent to Rowe that he was dealing with a person who was in such a disturbed state that it should have been questionable whether he should deal with him at all, let alone give him any encouragement to go any further.  And yet, that was what happened.  Later on that same Saturday Pike telephoned Rowe again and said he had something to show him. Rowe suspected that Pike wanted to show him the report, so he picked up Pike again.  Rowe said that at this second meeting, Pike's condition was similar to what it had been at the time of the first meeting.  They drove to the Kenmount Road area and parked.  Pike showed Rowe a letter which apparently had nothing to do with the investigation.  Then, Rowe said, Pike told him that he had the reports but that he was not going to show them to Rowe.  After 15 or 20 minutes' discussion, Pike showed the reports to Rowe.  At this point I must turn my attention to conflicting evidence as to whether Pike gave Rowe the reports on Saturday night.

Rowe said that Pike did not give him the reports, that on the following Monday morning he found them in an envelope in his mail box.  Pike said that he gave them to Rowe on Saturday night.  Pike gave his evidence first.  In view of Rowe's evidence which was given later, Pike was re-called and given the opportunity to give further evidence but he was definite in his assertion that he gave Rowe the reports on Saturday night.  I shall look first at Pike's evidence.  The following exchange took place between Counsel and Pike.

A. ... I showed him the reports and he glanced over the reports. And up to this point I never had made any decision to give him the reports and then he said 'Well, can I have the report1 and I said 'Yes, take them'.
Q. Did he make any comment after he read the report?
A. He did say something to the effect that these reports are dynamite.
Q. So you then decided to give him copies of the report?
A. Yes.  I gave him two copies.
Q. Now, then, what happened after you had given Mr. Rowe the copies of the report?
A. He dropped me off.
Q. Were there any conditions placed on your passing these reports to Mr. Rowe?
A. Well, I told Mr. Rowe not to have these reports hanging around. I told him to destroy these copies and he said he would copy them and destroy them.
Q. Why did you ask him that?
A. Because I felt there was a possibility that it could be traced back to the copying machine.
Q. And hence to you?
A.  Yes.
Q. Were you anxious at this time to conceal the .1 act that you had given these reports to Mr. Rowe?
A, Well, I didn't ... My concern was that of a cover-up and I didn't want to be ... have it traced back to me.  No.
…
Q. Did you ask him to keep the documents in confidence?
A.  I don't remember asking him that but I told him that it was for his information only.
…
Q. Did you suspect that the reports might go further?
A. I had no idea that the reports would be leaked to the news media. None whatsoever.
Q. Were you aware that that was a risk?
A. Yes, I suppose you could say that.
Q. And you elected to take that risk?
A. Yes.

The following relevant questions and answers are extracted from the record of Rowe's evidence:

Q. ... Did you feel you had any rights to the reports at that time?
A.  In the circumstances of this particular case I felt, yes, that I had a right ... to examine the reports and find out what the investigation had concluded ... I considered it to be part of my duty as the Leader of the Opposition, as Member of the House of Assembly ... I was given the documents as a politician and a Leader of the Opposition.
…
Q. Did  I occur to you that Sergeant Pike might have been doing something illegal or contrary to the Constabulary Rules in passing out these documents?
A. Yes, that did occur to me.
Q. And regardless of that you elected to accept the documents?
A. I did.
…
Q. Were these documents given to you in confidence or with any conditions attached?
A.  No. they were not.
Q. Did not Sergeant Pike say to you that these were given to you as an officer of the Court?
A, No. ... What was in fact said to me was that these documents indicate a cover-up and that he wanted me to have them and that was the sum and substance of the conversation.
Q. Were you asked not to give copies to anybody, keep them in confidence?
A. No.
Q. They were for your personal use?
A. No.
Q. Did you agree to destroy the copies he gave you?
A. No.
Q. Did you tell him that you would do so and make copies on your own copier?
A. No.
Q. What did you do with copies of Exhibits 1 and 2  (the reports) after you left Sergeant Pike?
A. I studied the reports ... and  I had to make up my mind what action I should take, if any, concerning them.

In later testimony Rowe was asked about an interview he had with members of the Newfoundland Constabulary who were investigating the release of the reports.  At that time he told the police that the reports had appeared in his mail box in a brown envelope on the following Monday morning.  Rowe said that that was how the reports came to him and that he had no idea of how they came to be in his mail box.  He denied strongly that Pike gave him the reports at their meeting.  That was the substance of lengthy questioning on the matter. Pike was questioned again and repeated his evidence that he gave Rowe the reports when they met on Saturday night. On the basis of the evidence which I have reproduced at length I am satisfied that Pike did give the reports to Rowe on Saturday night.

Rowe made several copies of the two reports and on Tuesday, September 26th, 1978 he telephoned what he described as "the most senior newsmen and editors that I was aware of in St. John's".  He listed them as Steve Herder, publisher of the Evening Telegram, Basil Jamieson, vice-president of news with CJYQ Radio, James Furlong, news editor of NTV News, Paddy Gregg, the CBC national television news representative in Newfoundland and Carl Cooper, news director at Radio Station VOCM.  He told each of them that he had a copy of the two police reports and asked them whether they wished to have a copy for their own perusal.  He said that there were "no strings attached, no conditions attached, no stipulations as to what, if anything, they were to do with the report". He considered that there was a cover-up going on and what he "wanted to do was to leave it entirely in the hands of these senior editors and news directors and newsmen as to what, if anything, they wanted to do with the reports".

Each of the people whom Rowe contacted said that he would like to receive the report.  Rowe, himself, then put a copy of each report in an envelope and addressed an envelope to each of the persons named. He then gave the envelopes to his executive assistant, Brian Tobin, with instructions to deliver the envelopes as addressed,  Tobin did that.  Rowe did not tell Tobin what the envelopes contained, so Tobin had no direct knowledge of their contents.  He may have speculated on the contents because Rowe had let him know about the reports.  However, he did not really know what was in the envelopes.  He had no responsibility for releasing the contents of the reports.  That responsibility rested entirely with Sergeant Arthur Pike of the Newfoundland Constabulary, who released the copies of the reports to Mr. William Rowe, and with Mr. Rowe who copied the reports and then sent copies to representatives of the news media.

The Evening Telegram published a story on the front page of its edition of September 27th, the day following delivery of the copies of the report. Basil Jamieson said that he looked over the reports and decided not to use the material because its 'use would be contrary to the policy of CJYQ Radio.  He said that he exercised editorial judgment in reaching a decision.  That was in line with the station's policy against reporting of names of persons charged in certain types of cases, suicide victims, and others.  He said that the policy would extend to not using the name of a person who was under investigation for a serious crime but against whom charges had not been laid.  He considered that publication of a name under those circumstances might prejudice the right of that person to a fair trial.

James Furlong, news editor of NTV News reported to the Chief of Police of the Newfoundland Constabulary that he had the copies of the reports because that morning the Daily News carried a story that the police were conducting an internal investigation concerning the story which had been published earlier in that paper. Furlong told the Chief of Police that he was not going to use the name of any person mentioned in the report. He said that was because he had been "schooled in journalism to not use a. name unless the person has been formally charged".  That was the way the story was written and published in a newscast that night.  He said that he took the earlier Daily News story and used the bulk of the information from that as the bulk of his story.  In fact, he said, no new information was presented in the story that his station carried.  The only thing added was that he had physical possession of the reports.

There was no evidence before the enquiry as to whether the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation used the reports because Paddy Gregg, to whom the reports had been sent, had been transferred out of the Province and was not available as a witness.

Carl Cooper, the news director of Radio Station VOCM and Elmer Harris, vice-president of news at the station, gave evidence of how they handled the reports when they received them.  When they opened the envelope which contained the reports and saw the provincial crest on some of the paper they concluded that they had received confidential reports and they decided to contact the police.  The station did not use the reports as a basis for any news stories.

In conclusion and in formally answering the first question set out in the Terms of Reference, Sergeant Arthur Pike was responsible for releasing the reports of June 7th and July 12th, 1978 to William Rowe and for the release of information to the Daily News.  William Rowe was responsible for the copying of the reports and for their transmission to the news media.  Brian Tobin delivered the copies of the reports to the news media but he did so as an employee and under the direction of William Rowe without knowledge of what was in the envelopes which he had been ordered to deliver in the course of his employment.  He, therefore, must be absolved of responsibility for any acts connected with the release, delivery or publication of the reports.

The Daily News was responsible for the publication of a story on September 21st which I have already referred to.  The Evening Telegram was responsible for the publication of a story on September 27th,  NTV News published a story but not based on the reports which were received from William Rowe.

-srbp-

Next – The Question of Justification

Elizabeth Towers Fire Inquiry – The Elizabeth Towers Fire and its Investigation

Continued from Part 1 – Introduction and Commission

This Commission of Enquiry was appointed because of the publication of two police reports into a fire which took place in Elizabeth Towers, an apartment building in St. John's.  The fire occurred at about 6:00 a.m. on April 26th, 1978, in an apartment occupied by the Honourable Dr. Thomas F. Farrell, who was then a member of the Executive Council of the Province of Newfoundland.

The Criminal Investigation Division [C.I.D.] of the Newfoundland Constabulary was responsible for investigating the cause of the fire.  The Division was in charge of Detective Inspector Donald Randell.  The arson investigation section of the C.I.D. was headed by Detective Sergeant Arthur Pike, who had four other detectives under his direction in that section.  The arson investigation section did"not investigate all fires.  It investigated all fires whose origins were of a suspicious nature, as well as certain other types of major fires, such as those involving businesses, churches and others.

Detective Robert Hillier was assigned to investigate the Elizabeth Towers fire on the morning when it took place.  I shall not go through the various steps followed in the filing of reports in the C.I.D.  The admissions made with relation to the release and publication of the two reports which were the subject matter of this enquiry show that there was no improper release of information by the staff in the C.I.D. office or any other member apart from Sergeant Pike.  Suffice it to say that a copy of the report would in due course be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions in the Department of Justice of the Province of Newfoundland.

The first report on the Elizabeth Towers fire was dated June 7th, 1978.  In accordance with normal procedure it was sent to Mr. John Kelly, the Director of Public Prosecutions, who received it June 9th. On June 13th he sent a copy of the report to Mr. Robert Hyslop, the Senior Crown Prosecutor in St. John's, asking him to review it and give his opinion on it in " writing,  Kelly had read the report and said that in his opinion "the investigation was very poorly done".

He said:

"The police had reached a premature conclusion and I saw an obvious need for a lot of additional investigation."

Kelly said that as a result of his own reaction to the report and of Hyslop's assessment of it, he wrote the Chief of Police of the Newfoundland Constabulary on June 14th outlining 24 points which he wanted clarified. He received a further report on July 13th.  It was the C.I.D. report which was dated July 12th and which was one of the reports released to the media.  Kelly said that the second report answered many, but not all, of the questions which he had asked.  In his opinion the questions were "quite material".  He sent a copy of the second report to Hyslop and asked him to review it and to meet with him so that both of them "could discuss what further action was necessary on the file".

Kelly said that he and Hyslop met and discussed the reports.  He said that he "felt at the time that there was an indication that a crime had been committed". He also said that although the second report substantiated his conclusion that there had been a crime and although the report identified the person who may have committed the crime, he "was not completely satisfied with the police investigation".  He and Hyslop had several discussions on the question of whether they had enough evidence to warrant the laying of charges.  He then decided to bring the file to the attention of the Deputy Attorney General, Mr. George Macaulay. 

Kelly said that in any case where there is difficulty he would ask for a second, or even a third, opinion.  He added that if Macaulay gives instructions that charges are to be laid straight away those instructions are followed because Macaulay is his superior.  When he consulted Macaulay, the latter decided that Inspector Randell should assume responsibility for providing the additional information which Kelly and Hyslop were seeking.  With reference to Macaulay's attitude towards the investigation, Kelly said:

"He was even more reluctant or more certain that charges should not be laid at that point and he wanted several areas covered that we had not even considered.  He had his doubts about the evidence that had been gathered at that point."

Kelly said that as a result of the consultations with Macaulay a third report was requested.  For an account of how that request was made I turn to the evidence of Macaulay and Randell.

Macaulay said that he first saw the reports of June 7th and July 12th in late July or early August, 1978 when Kelly and Hyslop came to him and "sought advice and instruction regarding progress and future action on the investigation".  He said that both of them were having difficulties in reaching conclusions, They came to him in accordance with the practice of consultation which was followed in the Department of Justice when doubts or difficulties arose.  He said that Kelly and Hyslop were concerned about the efficiency with which the investigation was being conducted and

"...they wanted to discuss the merits of the case, to see whether, in my opinion at that time, there were grounds for possibly laying a charge.  They couldn't reach a firm conclusion."

Macaulay said that Kelly came to see him on a Friday afternoon and he told Kelly that he wanted to study the reports over the weekend.  He arranged to meet with Kelly on the following Monday.  He studied the reports on the weekend.  He said:

"I had reached my own conclusion over the weekend from reading these reports that I, too, like Mr. Kelly had some concern about the quality of reporting and the efficiency of the investigation."

The meeting with Kelly and Hyslop to which I have already referred took place, as planned, on Monday.
It is interesting to note Macaulay's assessment of the two reports.  He described the report of June 7th as "very, very slim, very thin.  No fabric. A lot of police opinion but not much backing with direct, material, concrete evidence".  Fie said that the report of July 12th did not answer all of the questions which Kelly had asked.  He went on:

"My conclusion after reading the reports was that we needed further investigation before charges could be laid.  It was an arson case ... Traditionally that is a difficult case to reach a conclusion on. It was essentially a case of elimination.  We had to sweep aside possible people and circumstances that might have a bearing on the fire.  I then gave Prosecutor Hyslop point by point instructions on where the further investigation should go ..."

Macaulay said that since he was not happy with the way things had been going he was going to get in touch with the Chief of the Newfoundland Constabulary and insist that Inspector Randell, as Head of the C.I.D., should take charge of the investigation. Elaborating on the reasons for his dissatisfaction, Macaulay said:

"I was not happy with the way the statements had been taken.  I wasn't happy with the way Mr. Kelly's 20 to 25 points had been dealt with. I wanted a person in senior rank to take charge of this investigation."

Macau lay spoke to the Assistant Chief of Police who had Randell getting touch with Macaulay,  In relating a conversation with Randell, Macaulay said:

"... I conveyed to him my concern on the question of efficiency, speed and standards of reporting which were quite strong and asked him to contact Prosecutor Hyslop direct to take instructions on the1 further areas of investigation that we felt we needed...I told him ...that the additional areas that I had instructed for investigation should not take too long and I would expect a third report in around 10 days' time.  A third report carne in.  It was longer than 10 days' time because I believe some of the detectives were on holiday at the time and there were some re-arrangements of duties that had to be carried out. But the third report came in ... maybe 22 days after my instruction."

I shall return again to Macaulay's evidence but at this point I turn to that of Inspector Randell to indicate the extent to which it corroborates that of Macaulay.

Randell said that in the morning of July 31st, which was a Monday, the Assistant Chief of Police told him to call Macaulay,  He did so.  He said that they had a lengthy discussion, that Macaulay wanted to hear from him "before Friday because he would like to “lay charges of arson against Dr. Farrell".  Macaulay also told him to see Hyslop, which he did on the morning of August 1st.

I must note an element of urgency reflected in the evidence of Randell and Macaulay, though there is a minor disparity between them.  Macaulay said that he told Randell he would expect a report in about 10 days. 

Randell said that Macaulay told him he wanted to hear from Randell before the Friday following the Monday on which they spoke to each other, that is, within four days.  There is a disparity in the time span referred to in those two statements.  But that is not too important. What is important for the purpose of this enquiry is that the evidence of Macaulay and Randell indicates that Macaulay displayed a sense of urgency in his wish that the Department of Justice be in a position to lay charges as soon as possible.  That is important to remember when it comes to a consideration of the allegations by Sergeant Pike and Mr. William Rowe that there was what was referred to colloquially as a "cover-up".

Randell met with Hyslop after Macaulay directed him to take charge of the investigation and they studied a document which Hyslop had drawn up.  Randell said that he realized it was impossible for him alone to be able to do what was requested in one week.  He was expected to see Dr. Farrell again but Dr. Farrell was at his summer home in the Codroy Valley.  He was also asked to interview Dr. Farrell's son, who was in Ottawa.  Also, Randall felt that it was possible that Hillier, the investigating officer, might know something that was not in his reports, so he wanted to talk to Hillier before proceeding with the investigation.  That could not be done immediately because Hillier was travelling on the mainland of Canada by trailer and Randell did not know where-to reach him.  Randell also wanted to talk to Pike, who was.in St. Anthony on leave.  He reached Pike by-telephone and had him return to St. John's,  They met on August 2nd,  After that meeting, Pike returned to St. Anthony.  I shall have to pick up that part of the narrative again when I review Pike's activities.

Around August 5th or 6th Randell told Macaulay that he needed more time,  On August 16th. Randell submitted the third report.  At that time there was .a witness whom Randell wished to interview but- she was in Western Canada.  He said that in his August 16th report he stated that he would see that witness 'when she.returned to St, -John's, that he might get a statement from her and that he 'would then submit a further report.

Macaulay had the following to say about the third report:

"We looked at the third report, coupled with the first and second and I had a further meeting with . the prosecutor, Mr, Hyslop and the Director, Mr. Kelly.  Again, I wasn’t happy with the third report. There were areas to be eliminated, there were people to be eliminated,  I wanted these people to be interviewed."

Macaulay said that he wanted some polygraph testing done.  Apparently, as a result of a voluntary polygraph examination of one person whom Macaulay regarded as a possible suspect, that suspect was relieved of suspicion. Macaulay said that as a result of the instructions he gave a fourth report was received near the end of September.  Randell said that the report was dated September 15th.

Randell went to Ottawa on September 18th to attend a six-week course at the Canadian Police College. On September 26th or 27th he was instructed to return to St, John's because of the leakage of the reports of June 7th and July 12th to the news media.  He returned on September 29th for the purpose of reviewing the entire investigation arid to make recommendations. He studied the reports and met with Macaulay and Kelly. He said:

"It was decided that I should check on all the statements that were taken, re-interview the witnesses and, as I stated, make recommendations or suggestions.  I conducted the further investigation and I recommended that Dr. Farrell be charged with arson. I then went to Provincial Court in St. John's and I laid an information charging him with arson."

The records show that the information was laid on October 16th, 1978.  In due course a preliminary enquiry was held and the charge against Dr. Farrell was dismissed.

Even though some five months elapsed from the date of the fire to the laying of an information, this was not an inordinate delay, nor was it unusual.  When it appears that a criminal offence has been committed police investigators may very well have suspicions and may, indeed, have well-founded suspicions.  Having suspicions and proving the commission of an offence to the satisfaction of a court are two different matters.  Indeed, this same investigation and the subsequent preliminary enquiry demonstrated this.

-srbp-

Continued in Part 3 - “The Release of the Reports of the Investigation”

Elizabeth Towers Fire Inquiry – Intro/Commission

First Report

Public Enquiry into Release and Publication

of

Police Reports into Fire at Elizabeth Towers,

St. John’s

Submitted to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor

August 16th, 1979

His Honour Judge P. Lloyd Soper, D.C.J.

Commissioner

Introduction

This Enquiry was constituted under The Public Enquiry Act by the following Commission of appointment.

ELIZABETH THE SECOND, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her Other Realms and Territories, QUEEN, Head of the Commonwealth,  Defender of the Faith.

Gordon A. Winter, Lieutenant-Governor
T. Alexander Hickman, Minister of Justice

COMMISSION TO:

HIS HONOUR JUDGE P, LLOYD SOPER
Judge of the District Court of Humber-St. George's Corner Brook, Newfoundland

GREETING:

WHEREAS it appears desirable and expedient in the public interest that an enquiry be held relating to certain matters respecting the release and publication of police reports concerning an investigation into a fire at Elizabeth Towers, St. John's, and for other matters pertaining thereto;

NOW KNOW YE that under and by virtue of The Public Enquiries Act, Chapter 314 of the Revised Statutes of Newfoundland, 1970, We, by and with the advice of Our Executive Council of Our Province of Newfoundland, reposing great trust and confidence in your knowledge, integrity and ability, have constituted and appointed and do by these Presents constitute and appoint you the said

P. LLOYD SOPER

to be a Commissioner to conduct an investigation into the matters following and to make such recommendations with regard to any and all of those matters and other matters connected therewith as you may think fit, that is to say

(1)    to enquire into and report upon all facts and circumstances relating to or having a bearing upon the publication of the contents of two confidential police reports dated June 7, 1978, and July 12, 1978, respectively, addressed to the Deputy Minister of Justice for the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions relating to the investigation by the Department of Justice into the cause and origin of and possible responsibility for a fire at Elizabeth Towers Apartments, St. John's, on April 26, 1978, including but without prejudice to the foregoing generality

(a)  to determine and report upon all persons involved in or connected with the release, transmission, duplication, delivery and publication of the contents of the said reports;

(b)  to consider and report upon the justification, if any, for such release, transmission, duplication, delivery and publication by any of the persons referred to in paragraph (a) in the public good, in the interest of the administration of justice or otherwise as you deem fit; and

(c)    to enquire into and report upon what, in your opinion, any person referred to in paragraph (a) who came into possession of the said documents ought to have done with them either in the public interest, in the interest of the administration of justice or otherwise as you deem fit and what action, if any, should be taken against such person or persons.

(2)    to report as to whether, in your opinion, legislation, either by statute or by regulation, should prescribe for penalties for failure to maintain confidentiality of police reports in particular, and generally documents which are classified by the Crown as confidential, and if so

(a)  what penalties or sanctions should be imposed on police officers and other persons employed in the Public Service for breach of such confidentiality, and

(b)    without prejudicing the basic concepts of freedom of the press, whether persons, other than public servants, should be sanctioned and if so, what class of persons and to what extent.

(3)  to make such enquiry and to report upon any matter which you consider to be incidentally connected with any of the matters referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2).

AND WE DO by these Presents confer upon you, the said Commissioner, the power of summoning before you any witness or witnesses and of requiring all such witnesses to give evidence orally or in writing upon oath or solemn affirmation, and to produce such documents and things as you, the said Commissioner, may deem requisite to the full investigation of the matter which you are appointed to enquire into;

AND WE DO by these Presents authorize you, the said Commissioner, to adopt such procedure and methods as you, the said Commissioner, may from time to time deem expedient for the proper conduct of the enquiry and to sit at such times and places as you, the said Commissioner, may from time to time decide;

AND FURTHER, We require you, with as little delay as possible to report to us your findings upon the matters herein submitted for your consideration.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF We have caused these Our Letters to be made Patent and the Great Seal of Newfoundland to be hereunto affixed.

WITNESS:  Our trusty and well beloved the Honourable Gordon Arnaud Winter, Officer of Our Order of Canada, Lieutenant-Governor in and for Our Province of Newfoundland.

AT OUR GOVERNMENT HOUSE in Our City of St. John's this 23rd day of February in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and seventy-nine and in the Twenty-eighth year of Our Reign.

BY COMMAND,
Deputy Registrar General

At my request and in accordance with my recommendation His Honour the Lieutenant Governor in Council appointed Frederick R. Woolridge Esq., Q.C. of Corner Brook to be Commission Counsel and Paul Stapleton Esq., Barrister and Solicitor of St. John's to be Assistant Counsel and Secretary.  Hearings of the Commission had to be scheduled in order to accommodate prior judicial and professional commitments of myself as Commissioner and of Counsel. The first sittings took place in St. John's on Monday and Tuesday, April 2nd and 3rd, 1978, [See note below*] followed by further sittings on Monday and Tuesday, April 9th and 10th, At those sittings 21 witnesses gave sworn testimony.

On April 10th I adjourned the hearings to Wednesday, May 16th in order to provide ample opportunity for interested persons or groups to prepare briefs relating to the recommendations I was asked to make under Section 2 of the Terms of Reference. 

In order that the widest possible publicity might be given to my invitation for  briefs, the Secretary to the Commission placed advertisements in 13 newspapers in the Province. In addition, he wrote the following, inviting them to submit briefs:

• Royal Newfoundland Constabulary 
• Royal Canadian Mounted Police 
• Police Brotherhood [Editor’s note:  now the RNC Association] 
• Treasury Board 
• Newfoundland Association of Public Employees 
• Law Society of Newfoundland 
• Canadian Bar Association

At the hearing on May 16th I received a brief from Frederick J. Evans and another on behalf of the Criminal Justice Section of the Newfoundland Branch of the Canadian Bar Association,  I also received a letter on behalf of the Commanding Officer of "B" Division of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I do not know, nor can I conclude, whether the sparse response to the invitation for briefs indicates indifference to the subject matter or confidence in the Commissioner.  In any case, it means that recommendations may very well be based largely on my own research, with the assistance of Counsel. It also means that the recommendations will be submitted as a second part of my report.  The first part consists of my findings of fact.

Continued – The Elizabeth Towers Fire and Its Investigation

-srbp-

*  The year in this sentence is evidently wrong and is likely a simple typographical error. It should be 1979.  The fire at Elizabeth Towers took place on April 26, 1978.   Soper conducted his first hearings the following April.

Note on this edition:  Commissioner Soper submitted his original first report in 47 pages of typescript. The format of the pages is typical of the time.  Sections are denoted by underlining.  The first line of paragraphs is indented by about one inch in addition to being separated from the previous paragraph by double spaces. In the commission, some portions are flush right, some are centred and others are flush left. 

The title of statutes is not underlined although, by the convention of the time they should have been.

This edition is the result of scanning of the original typed pages.  Each scan was edited to correct any obvious errors in scanning (e.g.  “ray” in the scanned version instead of “my” in the original.)  Errors persist despite several edits.

Section titles are given in bold print and underlining.  As much as possible, all text is presented flush left.  This includes sections such as the numbered and lettered paragraphs in the commission which were indented in the original. Capitalization is as it was in the original.

Direct quotations from evidence given at the inquiry are are presented as in the original.  That is, they are denoted by quotation marks if the section is short and included in the body of a sentence.  In the case of lengthier excerpts, they are given indented and in italics.

There are no texts or tables.

Note on the Public Inquiries Act, RSN 1970, c. 314.  The Public Inquiries Act under which Soper received his commission continued through the statute revision in 1990.  A new inquires law passed the legislature swiftly in 2006, after the House of Assembly spending scandal broke, and received assent in December that year.