Unfortunately, the identity of the latest entrant into the RCMP’s Hall of Shame cannot be named due to a publication ban imposed to protect the identity of the victim, also an RCMP member.
Here’s what we know or can glean from the few news reports available.
- At the time of the offence, specifically publishing an intimate image without consent, violating Section 162.1 of the Criminal Code, J.S. and another unnamed person were both RCMP recruits.
- They engaged in a sexual relationship.
- J.S. filmed at least three of their sexual encounters.
- In 2017, without the consent of his sexual partner, J.S uploaded three videos of their sexual encounters to a popular pornography website.
- The video descriptions contained the full name of the sexual partner, the city where the individual resided, and the victim’s face was readily identifiable in at least one of the videos.
- All three videos were viewed at least 1,000 times.
The fact he uploaded the videos and identified his sexual partner by name and location implies the relationship ended and J.S. was particularly displeased about it.
At some point, the victim of his revenge porn learned of the videos and filed a formal complaint.
After an RCMP investigation, J.S. was arrested and charged with one count of publishing an intimate image without consent, or what is commonly known as revenge porn, under Section 162.1 of the Criminal Code.
In Canada, publishing revenge porn is an indictable offence with a maximum penalty of five years in prison.
J.S. also found himself the subject of a series of disciplinary hearings that led to his eventual removal from the RCMP.
During his first attempt to plead, Judge Kristen Mundstock refused to allow the former RCMP member to enter a guilty plea over the phone. Her legal rationale was section 650 (1) of the Criminal Code:
An accused, other than an organization, shall be present in court during the whole of his or her trial.
Chilliwack Progress reporter Paul Henderson explained it this way:
I have covered countless trials, pleas, bail and sentencing hearings, and I’ve always seen the offender’s face, observing mannerisms and emotions that can only be properly identified, even if imperfectly, in flesh.
Speaking one or two words as he did over the phone in that hearing, it occurred to me that J.S. might have been sitting on a wooden bench weeping with contrition. Or, maybe, his eyes were rolling back into his head, feet up, gin and tonic in hand on a sunny patio.
His physical positioning and attitude were much more likely somewhere in between, but did he feel closer to eye-rolling or contrition?
We simply don’t know, and this is not an insignificant fact.
Judge Mundstock insisted the offender must be present, in court, before she would allow any plea, guilty or otherwise.
“The sentencing judge must be in a position to confront the offender, meet his eye and explain the wrong in the sentencing and the reasons for sentencing. The offender must participate in the justice system in a meaningful way and I’m not satisfied that participating by telephone is meaningful.”
Excellent decision.
On June 23, 2020, the ex-RCMP member identified only as J.S. was physically in court before Judge Kristen Mundstock where he entered his desired plea: Guilty.
Judge Kristen Mundstock looked J.S. in the eye and called his actions a “particularly heinous” case of revenge porn, then sentenced him to a conditional sentence of 15 months.
Defence counsel David Duncan raised what he called “mitigating factors” including the fact his client pleaded guilty, had no criminal record, was remorseful and was otherwise of “good character.”
J.S. was married at the time of the offence. He was also a member of a church, and while both his wife and his church leaders know what he did still support him fully, cheating on his wife and posting the videos online are not typically actions of a man with “good character.”
On this point, the judge and I fully agree.
“His actions were deliberate and mean-spirited,” Mundstock said. “Given his training as an RCMP officer, his moral blameworthiness is particularly high, in my view.”
Speaking after the sentence was handed down, Crown counsel James Whiting said, “The area of revenge porn is a serious one. It is a very sad type of offence that does have a very significant impact on victims.”
A sentence of 15 months “does reflect the cruel and premeditated nature of this offence,” he said.
For me, this case is simply one more in a long list of cases proving the RCMP’s entrance screening is woefully inept.
Canada’s national police force suffers from a long-standing failure to recruit new members, a problem RCMP Commissioner Brenda Licki was warned about.
“The RCMP has a growing vacancy rate that exceeds its present ability to produce regular members at a rate that keeps pace with projected future demands,” a 2018 briefing report said.
Continuing to lower RCMP entrance requirements may be the answer to ongoing recruiting problems but, as this case shows all too well, careful what you wish for.
Scraping the bottom of the moral barrel isn’t going to solve the RCMP’s ongoing public relations problems – it’s going to increase them – and the RCMP already has far more problems than it can cope with.
Leave a Reply