This complaint arose from events during the complainant Military Police (MP) member's deployment on an overseas mission. During the course of duties, the complainant and others became involved in a case of suspected breach of security. The subject of this interference complaint was the Commanding Officer (CO) of the overseas military base at which the events occurred.
During the deployment, an allegation arose that a soldier had arranged for employees of a contractor to enter the base grounds to install portable toilets without the proper security documentation being in place. This matter was reported to the Chain of Command (CoC) and later to the MP as an alleged breach of security.
The MP initiated an investigation. The member who conducted the investigation attempted to contact the soldier alleged to have caused the security breach. An email exchange with the soldier led the MP to understand that the subject had instructed the soldier not to provide a statement prior to the CoC investigation into the allegations regarding a possible security breach.
The complainant filed an interference complaint with the Military Police Complaints Commission (MPCC) concerning the subject officer's actions.
Based on the evidence, and taking into account communication gaps, the MPCC found that, while the supervisory inquiries by the CoC had caused a delay in the soldier's response to the MP, it did not affect the subject's ultimate decision not to participate in the investigation. However, the MPCC also observed that better communication at the forefront of the alleged investigation between the MP and the CO may have alleviated issues in this case and in particular the delays in the soldier's ultimate response not to participate in an interview with the MP.
The MPCC concluded that this interference complaint was not substantiated.
- Date modified: