The RCMP officer who was lambasted by a Richmond provincial court judge over a botched ecstasy lab investigation, is one of the Mounties now facing criminal charges in connection with a high-profile murder case in Surrey.
In tossing out all evidence gathered by police in January 2007 at a massive Raymond Avenue ecstasy lab, Richmond provincial court Judge Paul R. Meyers put the blame on RCMP Cpl. Danny Michaud, who was in charge of the investigation.
“The RCMP officer in charge of the investigation was Cpl. Michaud and he must accept the responsibility for leading an investigation that ignored and flaunted the accuseds’ Charter of Rights, and did so consistently over a 14 month period,” Judge Meyers wrote in a June ruling.
Michaud was charged in June with breach of trust and attempting to obstruct justice in the Surrey Six multiple murder case, where six people were murdered in a Surrey condo in October of 2007.
Michaud is also accused of attempting to mislead Ontario Provincial Police investigators, who were conducting an internal investigation into allegations of an inappropriate relationship with a potential witness in the case. Three other Mounties were also charged.
In the ecstasy ruling release last week, Judge Meyers tossed out all evidence seized by police from the ecstasy lab, and wrote:
“From Cpl. Michaud’s initial choice to apply for a Telewarrant rather than to apply to a justice or judge in person, to knowing that the suspects probably would not speak or understand English very well but yet not bothering to arrange to have interpreters there to explain to them the reasons for their arrest and what their charter rights were, to not showing or reading the warrants to the occupants of two of the houses, to leaving two of the accused half-naked, outdoors in the middle of winter to be hosed down with cold water while in view of their neighbours, to not knowing that they had a legal obligation to file a report in the Richmond court registry within seven days of the execution of the warrants, all cumulatively, in my view, amount to an unavoidable conclusion that the officers in charge of this case, were totally unconcerned with what charter rights these co-accuseds were guaranteed by virtue of Canadian law. The officers in charge, just did not seem to care.”