The Dunphy Shooting: serious questions #nlpoli

Question Number 1:  Who has been trying to spin the story by feeding both David Cochrane and Fred Hutton with confidential information?

The standard police position is to withhold all information about officer-involved shootings as part of the investigation.

That’s the position Royal Newfoundland Constabulary chief Bill Janes took at his news conference on Monday morning about the death of Donny Dunphy.

Yet, both VOCM and CBC reported information on Sunday evening and early Monday morning about the fatal police shooting in a rural community that could have only come from either very highly placed political sources or police officers very close to the incident and the investigation.

Here’s the first line from Cochrane’s first story:

CBC News has learned that an officer of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, who was at the scene of the fatal shooting on Sunday in Mitchells Brook, NL, was there to investigate an alleged threat against Premier Paul Davis.

Other reports indicated that the officer shot Dunphy after Dunphy produced a “long gun” on the lone police officer there.

All those details could only have come from the officer who shot Dunphy, someone else who was on the scene at the time of the shooting, one of the investigating officers, or a senior political staffer who had been briefed on the incident by police.

Who has been leaking information?

Things that raise alarm bells #nlpoli

As it becomes more clear that the two recent murders of Canadian soldiers had less to do with terrorism and more to do with people who are otherwise screwed up, the RCMP commissioner issues a media statement claiming the police have a video that links one murder to “ideological and political motives.”

But they can’t release the video and may never release it.

Right.

Mounties get lesson in constitutional law

Lawyers representing suspended Royal Canadian Mounted Police deputy commissioner Barbara George are seeking a federal court injunction to stop the federal police force from investigating their client for perjury.

Questions arose earlier in a parliamentary investigation into handling of the RCMP pension fund among other things. George's testimony was contradicted by other witnesses.

Well, it turns out that a parliamentary privilege of immunity dating back to at least the 17th century protects both members of parliament as well as witnesses in parliamentary proceedings.

While Federal Court Judge Daniele Trembley-Lamer hasn't handed down a ruling, a great many people will be watching the decision with interest. There may be an aspect of the law that would lift that exemption from legal proceedings in a case like this. Whatever happens it will be an important case to watch.

Local Bond Papers' readers will recall that Premier Danny Williams tossed around the idea of removing immunity in the House of Assembly. While the second article on the subject hasn't appeared yet, the first one noted that immunity would be an easy thing to remove, at least in Newfoundland and Labrador. It also made this point:

Freedom of speech is also widely held to be an important right of legislators for the wider public interest it serves. Members of the legislature are entitled to make whatever statements they wish in dealing with a public issue. The same privilege extends to those called before the legislature or its committees as witnesses. All may speak freely and openly without fear and without concern that comments ought to be proven true before they are made.

-30-

Update: In an unrelated matter, a supreme court justice in Newfoundland and Labrador today dismissed a case involving a former ombudsman who was suing the provincial legislature over his firing last year.

The justice cited parliamentary immunity as the grounds for the dismissal.

Perhaps the Premier is reconsidering his remarks in February.