
No charges for VPD jail guards in case that left drunk man with skull fracture: BCPS
The B.C. Prosecution Service has decided not to prosecute a Vancouver jail guard in connection to an incident that left an intoxicated man with a skull fracture in April 2021.
The Independent Investigations Office of B.C. forwarded a report to Crown counsel last year recommending consideration of a charge of assault causing bodily harm against a special municipal constable working for the Vancouver Police Department.
On Friday, more than a year after the IIO submitted its report and more than four years after the incident itself, the BCPS published a so-called "clear statement" document summarizing the incident and the service's reasons for not laying charges.
The prosecution service determined that the available evidence against the jail guard – referred to in the document as the 'subject officer' or 'SO' – did not meet the charge assessment standard.
What happened
The document indicates that the injured man – referred to as the 'affected person' or 'AP' – was taken into custody by VPD officers on the evening of April 19, 2021.
He was intoxicated, and the arrest was for 'the offences of indecent act and breach of peace,' which were alleged to have occurred near the intersection of Cambie Street and West Broadway, according to the document.
He was taken to the VPD jail in a prisoner transport van.
'Upon arrival, the AP was still intoxicated,' the document reads. 'Security video footage shows that his jeans fell down repeatedly, and at one point his private parts were exposed. The video also shows that at all times following his arrival at the VPD jail the AP was moderately unsteady on his feet.'
Police reported, and the surveillance video appeared to confirm, that the man was 'unco-operative, particularly with regard to instructions to keep his hands on the wall while being searched,' according to the document.
The subject officer and a witness officer walked the man to his cell, where he lost his balance, fell and hit his head.
Both officers were touching the man at the time he fell, but the BCPS statement says the surveillance video evidence was insufficient to establish that either officer caused the fall.
Charge assessment
When deciding whether to approve charges, the BCPS considers a two-part test. First, prosecutors must determine whether there is 'a substantial likelihood of conviction.' If there is, prosecutors must believe that 'the public interest requires a prosecution.'
In this case, prosecutors found the available evidence did not meet the charge assessment standard.
Beyond concluding that it was not clear that either officer had caused the man's fall, Crown prosecutors determined that they would be 'unable to disprove' a defence that the officers' use of force was reasonable and justified in the circumstances.
Under the Criminal Code, peace officers acting in their lawful duties and on 'reasonable grounds' are 'justified in doing what (they are) required or authorized to do and in using as much force as necessary for that purpose,' according to the BCPS statement.
'In a prosecution, the onus is on the Crown to prove that the legal defences provided under the Criminal Code to peace officers acting in the course of their duties have not been established,' the document reads.
In this case, that means prosecutors would have had to prove that the force an accused officer used went beyond what was necessary in the circumstances.
'The force employed by the SO against the AP for purposes of escorting and securing the AP into cell 1 aligned with VPD jail guards' training,' the statement reads.
'The available evidence does not otherwise establish that the SO employed force against the AP beyond that which was reasonable, necessary, or proportionate for purposes of securing the AP into cell 1.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Globe and Mail
4 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
Sorry, speed cameras aren't the problem
A spectre is haunting Canadian roads: the real prospect of actually having to pay a fine for not respecting the speed limit. As speed cameras proliferate, particularly in Ontario, some drivers are showing their displeasure. Many of the cameras have been vandalized and one in Toronto cut down six times. It's time for a deep breath. Speed cameras shouldn't disappear, they should multiply. The cameras are effective and, because their penalty is so easily avoided, they are fair. In fact, a recent poll for CAA showed majority support among Ontarians for the cameras. Politicians who pander to the minority of drivers who hate them are gambling with public safety. Those politicians span the ideological spectrum, from Ontario's Progressive Conservative Premier Doug Ford to former Ontario Liberal leader Steven Del Duca, now mayor of suburban Vaughan, and left-leaning Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow. So busy trying to placate drivers, these politicians ignore that speed cameras work. The hit in the wallet is sufficiently unpleasant that it convinces people to slow down. For evidence, consider that the number of tickets issued by any given camera typically goes down over time. That effect has been further demonstrated by research from a hospital and university in Toronto. According to their findings, referenced in a recent city staff report, the proportion of vehicles speeding went down 45 per cent after cameras were installed near schools and in high-collision areas. The cameras actually generate relatively little revenue, after administrative costs are deducted. Their effect on behaviour is more important than the money. Fines lead to slower driving, and less speeding equals fewer injured or dead people. That's because speed is dangerous. The brain has limits on how fast it can process information taken in from peripheral vision. So a driver going more quickly experiences a literal narrowing of their vision, making it harder to spot possible risks in time. And the distance needed to brake goes up dramatically with speed, doubling between 30 and 50 kilometres an hour. Both of those factors make a collision more likely. And if one does occur, speed will make it worse. A person hit by a vehicle travelling at 30 kilometres an hour has a 90-per-cent chance of surviving. Increase the speed to 40 kilometres an hour, though, and the survival rate drops to 60 per cent. A person hit at 50 kilometres an hour has only a 20-per-cent chance of living. Mr. Ford may commiserate with drivers 'getting dinged' for going '10 kilometres over,' but small increases in speed matter. So keep the cameras, even though there are aspects of the policy over which reasonable people can disagree. Cities tend to be cagey about how much over the limit a driver has to be going to be issued a ticket. There will be absolutists on either side – claiming that any violation is worth ticketing, or that everyone speeds and thus a big buffer is warranted – but the best solution is location-specific. Speed increases make a much bigger difference on a quiet residential street than on a highway. Another contentious point is the extent to which drivers should be warned about speed cameras. Ms. Chow called earlier this year for bigger and more visible warning signs, in order to be 'fairer' to drivers. On the face, this is a farcical idea. The speed limit sign is surely warning enough. Why add a sign that effectively says, 'We really mean it'? Still, if signs flagging the presence of speed cameras are the price that must be paid for their political acceptability, so be it. Because, in the end, it may not make any difference to the effectiveness of the cameras. Cities are typically littered with so many signs that they become background clutter for drivers. These will similarly fade from notice. People who rail against speed cameras because thousands or tens of thousands of tickets have been issued – framing this as unjust or evidence of government overreach – miss the point. The volume of infractions speaks to how common speeding has become. Police rarely take traffic laws seriously, so the chances of being caught by them are slim. Cameras are reviled because they change the risk calculus. Unhappy drivers should remember that choosing to exceed the speed limit is, in fact, illegal, and that there's an easy hack to avoid getting a ticket: lighten up on that right foot.


CTV News
35 minutes ago
- CTV News
Woman dies in rollover near Richmond
Ottawa police and paramedics on Garvin Road following a fatal rollover crash. July 25, 2025. (Peter Szperling/CTV News Ottawa) The Ottawa Paramedic Service says a woman has died following a vehicle rollover near Richmond. Emergency responders were called to a section of Garvin Road between Shea and Huntley roads at around 4 p.m. Friday. Paramedics said the woman was pronounced dead at the scene. No other details were immediately available. Ottawa police say Garvin Road is expected to be closed between Shea and Huntley roads for several hours for the investigation.


CTV News
2 hours ago
- CTV News
In the wake of the World Junior verdict, one survivor shares her quest to change hockey culture
Following not guilty verdicts in the World Juniors sex assault trial, questions remain about hockey culture and the meaning of consent. Adrian Ghobrial reports.