A judge pointed out flaws in the way the case against Const. Andrew Scott Hedderson acted, reinstated and awarded back pay, according to a recently made public decision posted on the RCMP website. The judge also ordered a second hearing, but Hedderson has since resigned from the force. The case dates back to March 2017, when police were called to a parking lot in Surrey, BC, where a man had assaulted his girlfriend — referred to as “Ms. W’ in RCMP documents. The man, identified as “Mr. P’ in these documents, was released on bail on the condition that he not contact Ms W. He breached this order almost immediately after his release. Both Ms. W and Hedderson provided statements as part of the RCMP conduct board’s investigation into what happened next. RCMP conduct boards look at the most serious cases of police misconduct — those where dismissal is on the table. They are formal court-like proceedings, and judges have the legal authority to order disciplinary action, such as loss of pay or dismissal. Under the conduct board’s original decision, Hedderson – who, in his statement to the conduct board, referred to himself as “a pretty charming guy” – became the lead investigator in the breach file. The judgment states that Hedderson visited Ms. W at home and that the RCMP officer alleged that he attempted to establish a relationship with her in order to obtain a statement to charge Mr. P. with breaching his conditions. Henderson told the conduct board that he felt she was “flirting” with him and that he tried to use that to make her comfortable enough to give a statement. Henderson, who was recently paroled at the time of the incident, told the board he didn’t mind the flirting as he was “going home to an empty flat” but that afterwards “the day went completely pear-shaped”, the conduct board says . decision. According to that ruling, Hedderson said he asked Mrs W if she had pictures of her injuries and that she showed him nude pictures of her in response. Ms W told the behavior board that she showed Hedderson a photo taken before a shower but did not realize it showed her breasts. In her statement to the board, Ms W said she was embarrassed and that while Hedderson had told her not to worry, she said she now felt she had to show her something in return. Henderson told the board that Mrs W was the one pushing for a picture.
Showing the photo “was my big mistake,” Mountie says
Hedderson told the board that after receiving a statement from Ms W, they came up with a plan together to deal with any attempts by Mr P to contact her. He said he was trying to leave Ms W’s house when he made another comment about seeing a picture and then showed her a picture of him wearing “very, very tight boxers”. “It’s essentially a bird picture. You can see a lot of everything,” he told the code of ethics researchers. “That was my big mistake.” Mrs W, meanwhile, told the board that it was Hedderson who forced her to see a picture of him. Henderson told investigators he was “pretty sure” he started the string of texts after meeting Ms W. It was “definitely sexual in nature,” he said. Ms W told the board that Hedderson’s messages were about him being “hard” and the size of his “package” and said he wanted to check her or carry out “a thorough check”. The RCMP logo outside the Royal Canadian Mounted Police “E” headquarters in Surrey, BC, where Const. Hedderson relied. (Darryl Dyck/The Canadian Press) During the conduct board proceedings, Hedderson described the relationship as consensual “despite the fact that it was terribly inappropriate and unprofessional”. The RCMP investigation found 323 text message exchanges between the two on Ms. W’s phone over an 11-day period. Hedderson told the board that, a few days after exchanging messages with Ms W, he began to panic and tried to close it to avoid compromising the breach record. “In retrospect, I had already…screwed it,” he added. Henderson told the board that when he told Ms W he had a date, she became “believably upset” and sent text messages saying she couldn’t trust the police, which escalated to threatening to end his career. Ms W confirmed these exchanges, telling the board he was “rude and calling him a pig and saying he was disgusting and unprofessional”. He said she accused him of taking advantage of her when she was “vulnerable” and referred to the fact that he could lose his job. Henderson told the behavior board that he eventually blocked her number but didn’t tell her.
The situation led to the withdrawal of the charge against Mr. P
Ms W told the board she continued to contact Hedderson about Mr P breaching his terms. Henderson, meanwhile, told the board he was concerned for the safety of Mrs. W. He told investigators that, in retrospect, he should have called 911 or the non-emergency line. “I think I should have called any of them, honestly. … It’s my job and … I got it, huh,” he later told investigators. In May 2017 Mr P was arrested on a warrant. Domestic violence crown counsel at Surrey Crown Counsel spoke to Ms W, who asked for the charges against Mr P to be dropped because she was four months pregnant and wanted him in the baby’s life. When Mrs W attended her ex-boyfriend’s hearing, she told Crown counsel that Hedderson had shown her sexual photographs of him and sent sexual texts. Crown counsel for domestic violence said Ms W also expressed fear of Henderson and the police. Because Henderson never came forward with the misconduct, the Crown dropped the trespass charge against Mr P. A conduct board investigation was then launched. “The fact that the Crown attorney was forced to maintain the charge of violating the no-contact treaty because of his actions [Hedderson] is just one example of the consequences of the conflict of interest he created, not to mention the impact on the public interest, as it completely destroyed his credibility and objectivity as a researcher,” the conduct board wrote in its initial decision. The conduct board issued a decision on the merits of the complaints in April 2018. This came as a surprise to the other parties to the case, who had been waiting for an opportunity to argue that Ms W should testify and submit comprehensive submissions on the allegations. The conduct board issued its final decision recommending Henderson’s dismissal from the force in December 2018. “Given the completely unacceptable form and nature of sexual harassment,” the board wrote, keeping Hedderson on the force “would jeopardize public trust and confidence.”
Henderson awarded back pay
Hedderson appealed, arguing that the board denied him his right to procedural fairness by failing to conduct an in-person hearing and by prematurely rendering a decision on the merits.
In a ruling handed down late last year and recently made public, Justice Steven Dunn sided with Hedderson, arguing that the conduct board’s decision “immediately strikes [Hedderson’s] right to be heard”.
“I find that the board violated principles of procedural fairness: failing to inform the parties that it intended to rule on the merits without an oral hearing or further written submissions, failing to allow the parties to test Ms. W’s credibility directly through testimony and cross-examination examination and, by not affording the appellant an opportunity to submit comprehensive submissions on the allegations and evidence,” Dunn wrote.
The federal government has promised to review how the RCMP disciplines its members.
The original decision was overturned and Dunn ordered a new hearing before a different conduct board.
Dunn also ruled that Hedderson should receive back pay and benefits dating back to December 2018.
Attempts to contact Henderson were unsuccessful. His representative at the conduct board hearing did not respond to CBC’s request for comment.
Corp. Alex Bérubé, a spokesperson for the BC RCMP, said Hedderson resigned from the force this month, meaning there won’t be a second hearing.
A spokesman for the RCMP union declined to comment on the case, citing privacy concerns.
Berube said all conduct appeals are reviewed “with the goal of ensuring that our processes are effective and consistent.”
The case is just the latest to highlight issues with the RCMP’s conduct process. The national police have been accused for years of insufficiently punishing Mounties in cases of harassment and sexual assault.
The federal government has promised to review how the RCMP disciplines its members.
Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino’s post-election mandate tasked him with launching “an external review of the RCMP’s sanctions and disciplinary regime to determine the adequacy of existing sanctions and whether they are being applied properly and consistently.”
