Facts and Complaint
The complaint concerned the conduct of a military police member during the investigation of an alleged security breach aboard one of Her Majesty’s Canadian ships. The breach related to the sending of an unencrypted protected document through the ship’s local area network. The breach was detected and the complainant’s access to the system was suspended. The incident was reported to the military police detachment and, as this was not the complainant’s first violation, an investigation was initiated. The investigator made arrangements to interview the complainant aboard the ship, but when he began to set up his equipment to audio record the interview, the complainant refused to continue. The military police member returned to his detachment and completed the investigation with the conclusion that the complainant had transmitted unencrypted protected information via the unclassified shipboard network system.
The complainant submitted a conduct complaint alleging that the military police member had never informed him that an audio recording device would be brought to the interview and that the investigator had presented conclusions and statements of fact in his report that were based on false assumptions.
Decision of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal
The Deputy Provost Marshal Professional Standards concluded that the allegations were unsubstantiated.
The complainant was not satisfied with the results and requested a review by the Military Police Complaints Commission. He made slight variations in his allegations and stated that the military police member had incorrectly indicated that the complainant had agreed to be audio recorded during their meeting and that the military police member had misrepresented the complainant’s statements in order to portray the complainant as “
fishing for information”.
Findings and Recommendations of the Chairperson of the Complaints Commission
As neither the complainant nor the military police member could recall exactly what was said during a telephone conversation held to arrange the interview, it is not possible to determine if the audio recording of the interview was discussed. Therefore the first allegation was considered to be unsubstantiated.
The second allegation concerning the military police member’s report implying that the complainant was “
fishing for information” was unsubstantiated.
Chairperson’s Reply following the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal Notice of Action
In the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal’s Notice of Action, both of the Military Police Complaints Commission’s findings were accepted.
- Date modified: