With town hall-style meetings being held by RCMP in the province’s 87 detachments to discuss local issues, some have already taken place.
Rural residents, used to long response times inherent in Saskatchewan’s wide open spaces, don’t always report criminal activity or suspicious behavior, but the RCMP wants them to rethink that attitude. It was one of the messages at a recent meeting.
Sgt. Colin Sawrenko of the Biggar detachment and district representative Staff/Sgt. Greg Abbott led a town hall meeting March 5 attended by about 100 people from town and surrounding rural municipalities.
In the event’s first hour, Sawrenko, who has worked in Biggar for five and a half years, explained information and statistics pertinent to the detachment.
There are five constables under Sawrenko, which he said means the detachment is “fully staffed,” as opposed to 2015, in which there were vacancies at the constable rank, which Sawrenko said affected the RCMP’s ability to carry out policing duties. The detachment is responsible for an area that includes Biggar, Perdue, and the RMs of Biggar, Perdue, Eagle Creek, Glenside and Rosemount.
Sawrenko said 2017 was the second year the Biggar detachment led the district in intelligence gathering, which he said accomplishes a good understanding of “who’s who in the zoo.”
“People don’t think we know who they are, but we do,” Sawrenko said. “And we have those conversations with people directly, believe me. They’re pretty blunt conversations. We know what’s going on.”
Sawrenko said the RCMP understands the drug culture in the area, and said he acknowledges that there’s “a problem with some of the harder drugs.” RCMP efforts in the community include school talks and the P.A.R.T.Y. program.
Sawrenko said there’s no established gangs in the Biggar jurisdiction, but “I’d be lying if I say there probably isn’t ties to gangs with some of the property crime but I can’t confirm anything specific.”
Gathering intelligence is easier for police if residents participate, and he said Internet rural crime watch, including a closed Facebook group accessible to ratepayers in surrounding areas, has been successful. RCMP keep track of the posts, and posted an advisory for the Biggar town hall on the page.
Abbott talked about how some area residents have found Citizens on Patrol to be useful, an initiative used in North Battleford. The initiative makes people realize “they’re not the only victims” when crime occurs.
Sawrenko said there was more reported crime in towns versus RMs, and repeatedly encouraged residents to call police, even over seemingly minor occurrences. Reporting suspicious activity, Sawrenko said, allows the RCMP to understand trends in the area and to allocate resources accordingly.
Sawrenko said reporting “seems insignificant, but you never know.
“Am I going to be able to do something right away with the information? Maybe not. But you just don’t know what piece of the puzzle that fits into unless you provide it to us.”
Sawrenko said crime can occur successively in nearby locations, and the more calls are made, the more likely the RCMP will be in the area where incidents are occurring.
“It’s frustrating when calls come in the day after incidents occurred, when an officer had been in the area the previous night,” Sawrenko said.
Response times to calls for service have historically been long in rural areas, dating back to Royal Northwest Mounted Police and Saskatchewan Provincial Police days. One man at the town hall meeting mentioned a particular call he made had a response time of six hours later.
Little Pine First Nation, north of Cut Knife, has experienced similar situations and began its own security force, with the eventual goal of developing a self-administered police service.
At the town hall meeting, questions of rights were repeatedly brought up by members of the audience, some of whom asked about what property owners can do in certain situations, such as seeing trespassers in a yard, or seeing people in the act of stealing tools from a shop. Some voiced the need for their rights to be stated simply.
“I can’t speak to every particular situation, nor can I give anybody a justification to do anything, that’s not my role,” Sawrenko said. “My role as a police officer is to respond to such things.”
Sawrenko said self-defence and defence of property come down to “reasonableness,” according to sections 34 and 35 of the Criminal Code.
Laws surrounding self defence and defence of property are based on circumstances. What one can and cannot do legally depends on what is considered reasonable given the circumstances.
One circumstance Sawrenko explained would likely not be deemed reasonable is sending a dog after somebody who enters a farmer’s property then leaves right away. The act would be seen as too aggressive versus the relatively low severity of the crime.
One woman said, “a lot of times, I feel, that the criminal is the one who gets off, and the victim is the one who suffers the most.”
Sawrenko said those interested in voicing their opinion about the law should contact MLAs and MPs.
Abbott said, “If you can avoid a confrontation with a criminal, do it,” and to call police. He said he didn’t mean people can’t defend themselves, but such confrontations are often subject to unforeseen variables.
Abbott used as an example of someone trespassing on a farmyard who’s high on crystal meth. Rather than interpreting shots from the property owner as warnings, the trespasser could interpret shots as provocation, leading to a shoot-out.
Police are trained to act under highly stressful, volatile circumstances with firearms, Abbott said, whereas the general public very often isn’t. Taking matters into one’s own hands could be “potentially creating more harm for yourself than what you intend to stop.”
Abbott said he understood calling police while there’s crime-in-action can be “extremely frustrating,” but said “don’t put yourself in a situation that can generate a confrontation in this day and age. It’s not worth it.”
Sawrenko said ways to deter crime include locking vehicles and storage facilities, cameras (especially trail cameras), alarm/security systems, signs for such services, and buying big dog houses. Some audience members said such measures place the responsibility onto victims, and security systems can be expensive.
Leaving keys in vehicles is also common, Sawrenko said.
One woman said “the fear is if you lock your vehicle, they come into your house and get the keys.”
Another comment said such measures could deter trespassers from one property, but they might go next door.
One man directed insults toward Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Pierre Trudeau, the RCMP, and the media. Some in attendance left early.
“Same old,” one man said as he left.
A LOOK AT THE LAW
At Biggar’s town hall meeting, Sgt. Colin Sawrenko said self-defence and defence of property come down to “reasonableness,” according to sections 34 and 35 of the Criminal Code.
In 2013, Stephen Harper’s government replaced the previous self-defence laws (formerly sections 34-42 of the Criminal Code) with “two broad sections,” according to Calgary lawyer Lisa Silver.
Simon Verdun-Jones of Simon Fraser University wrote that the 2013 changes had “dismantled the excessively and contradictory tangle of provisions that had been in force for many years and replaced them with relatively straightforward rules that turn on the reasonableness of the accused person’s conduct.”
In 2017, Acumen Law of Vancouver wrote about the changes to the Criminal Code.
How the 2013 changes will affect self-defence arguments, according to the article, are unclear and take a long time to develop as cases arise.
“It boils down to this: whereas before, the Crown would have to prove that the accused didn’t meet ‘thresholds’ of self-defence, now the Crown has to prove that the actions taken by the accused to defend themselves were not ‘reasonable in the circumstances,’ which would likely mean a broader range of defences available to the accused.”
As a result of the Criminal Code’s new wording, some cases in which arguing self-defence failed would have succeeded. It goes the other way, too, as some previously successful self-defence cases would now fail.
Laws surrounding self-defence and defence of property are based on circumstances.
Acumen Law writes, “The vast majority of cases where someone claims to have acted in self-defence have highly specific circumstances. Cases may have similarities, but are rarely so alike that what happened in one case can definitely apply for another. Self-defence, unfortunately, is such an individualized inquiry that we may never know the full extent of how these changes affect people who claim self-defence.”
In 2011 New Brunswick Conservative MP Robert Goguen made comments in the House of Commons about what might be, and not be, allowed under the new Criminal Code.
If a drunken neighbour “walks into the wrong house at 3 a.m., the homeowner may well be reasonable in perceiving a threat to himself and his family, even though there was in actual fact no threat at all, just a tired, drunken neighbour in the wrong house.”
Goguen said the law must allow people to use defensive force where they make a mistake that any reasonable person could make. But people can’t, legally, make unreasonable mistakes.
Goguen also said section 34 and 35 “broadens the defence in order to recognize the fact in emergency situations, a person might use other forms of behaviour in self-defence such as breaking and entering a building to seek refuge or even stealing a car in order to flee.”
Goguen said the changes were straightforward. Quebec NDP MP Anne-Marie Day said “I find the term ‘reasonable’ to be elastic. It is far from clear and precise.”
Conservative MP Brian Jean asked a question about a person’s home that was continuously broken into, and the homeowner set up a trap with a shotgun.
Goguen said using such a device “would probably be ruled to be excessive and beyond the scope of what might be reasonable. Obviously, setting off a shotgun to deter criminals is far excessive to perhaps setting up an alarm system, which might otherwise alert the police authorities and have them respond immediately.
“The intent of the law is to always give the police authorities the first obligation to respond,” Goguen said, “then to permit citizens to respond to situations wherein police cannot respond, and to of course only use what is considered reasonable force to protect themselves or their property.”
Some homeowners refer to a doctrine called Castle Doctrine, however it is not legal in Canada. According to Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School, castle doctrine is “an exception to a rule in place in some jurisdictions that requires a defendant to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense. The castle exception states that if a defendant is in his home, he is not required to retreat prior to using deadly force in self defense.”
Below, have a look at information from sections 34 and 35:
Defence of Person
Defence — use or threat of force
34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;
(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and
(c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.
Factors
(2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:
(a) the nature of the force or threat;
(b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;
(c) the person’s role in the incident;
(d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;
(e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;
(f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;
(f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;
(g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and
(h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.
No defence
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the force is used or threatened by another person for the purpose of doing something that they are required or authorized by law to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, unless the person who commits the act that constitutes the offence believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is acting unlawfully.
Defence of Property
Defence — property
35 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
(a) they either believe on reasonable grounds that they are in peaceable possession of property or are acting under the authority of, or lawfully assisting, a person whom they believe on reasonable grounds is in peaceable possession of property;
(b) they believe on reasonable grounds that another person
(i) is about to enter, is entering or has entered the property without being entitled by law to do so,
(ii) is about to take the property, is doing so or has just done so, or
(iii) is about to damage or destroy the property, or make it inoperative, or is doing so;
(c) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of
(i) preventing the other person from entering the property, or removing that person from the property, or
(ii) preventing the other person from taking, damaging or destroying the property or from making it inoperative, or retaking the property from that person; and
(d) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.
No defence
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person who believes on reasonable grounds that they are, or who is believed on reasonable grounds to be, in peaceable possession of the property does not have a claim of right to it and the other person is entitled to its possession by law.
No defence
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the other person is doing something that they are required or authorized by law to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, unless the person who commits the act that constitutes the offence believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is acting unlawfully.
Questions about the above sections should be directed to a lawyer.
