RCMP's handling of python case challenged by Jean-Claude Savoie's lawyer

Jean-Claude Savoie's lawyer says the RCMP violated his client's constitutional rights by filing a criminal charge against him after giving written assurance Savoie would not be charged in relation to his python's killing of two young boys in Campbellton in 2013.

Savoie was found not guilty by a jury Wednesday on the charge of criminal negligence causing death that was eventually laid by the RCMP.

With the verdict, a publication ban was lifted on an April 2016 motion by Savoie's lawyers to have the court issue a stay of proceedings in the case because of what the defence called misconduct by the police and Crown.

At issue was the lead investigator in Phase 1 of the investigation, Cpl. Gabriel Deveau, who gave defence lawyer Leslie Matchim written confirmation Savoie would not be charged in the case if Savoie answered four questions for the RCMP.

Savoie provided the answers to the police in writing through his lawyer.

Under Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a person under investigation has the right to remain silent and is under no obligation to answer questions from police.

Initial investigation

The initial investigation ended Nov. 22, 2013, with Deveau and Staff Sgt. Rick Potvin, who headed the RCMP's  major crime unit in northern New Brunswick, both signing off on a report that stated "the investigation does not support an offence of causing death by criminal negligence."

The file was then subjected to a review by RCMP major crime investigators in Halifax. They eventually confirmed the decision made by the New Brunswick investigators not to proceed with charges and signed off on the  file on Jan. 23, 2014.

Then, on Feb. 5, Insp. Marc Bertrand of J Division RCMP in New Brunswick was assigned to do a second review of the investigation.

"No explanation has been forthcoming to fill the lacuna Jan. 23, 2014, and Feb. 5,  2014," noted  Court of Queen's Bench Justice Frederick Ferguson in his July 26, 2016, ruling.

"There is no explanation why it was that Insp. Bertrand was tasked with reopening the file."

Bertrand determined there was sufficient evidence to have Savoie charged with criminal negligence causing death.

Matchim's argument was that Savoie's right to a fair trial had been irrevocably prejudiced.

Ferguson stated Matchim's position was that the RCMP's breach of its guarantee not to launch a prosecution "is so offensive to societal notions of fair play and decency and egregious" that proceeding with the trial would be harmful to the  repute of the administration of justice.

The 4 questions

The four questions put to Savoie by Deveau were:

• Upon discovering the tragic scene that morning, what did you do and in what order?

• Did you move any items in the living room (i.e. mattresses, blankets, fallen ceiling tiles, ventilation pipes, etc.)
• At what point that morning did you unlock the door to the enclosure?
• First responders have noted seeing you with blood on your hands when they first arrived and you were  outside. Can you explain where the  blood came from?

Savoie answered the questions in writing in the third person through Matchim.

"The parties agree that the answers to the questions put did not lead to any derivative evidence being gathered by investigators," Ferguson says his the ruling. "The answers did not affect the decision that Cpl. Deveau had taken to close the investigation without laying any criminal charges."

Bertrand stated in an affidavit he was brought in by his superiors to  re-evaluate the file.

Answers had no influence

Bertrand also stated Deveau's questions and Savoie's answers had no influence on his final opinion that grounds existed to charge Savoie with criminal negligence causing death.

Bertand also stated Deveau gave the written confirmation there would be no charges against Savoie without the consent of his superiors and it was beyond Deveau's authority to do so since such a guarantee could only be authorized by the attorney general of the province.

Obviously, Ferguson denied Matchim's motion to halt proceedings, clearing the way for the trial that took place in Campbellton starting Oct. 31. The answers provided by Savoie to police were not to be used in the trial by all parties.   

Vindication for Matchim came with Wednesday's not guilty verdict by the jury of seven women and four men.

"I hope it bears some more scrutiny by someone," Matchim said.

"To me, it's all very unsatisfactory."