Response to Community Questions around Statement involving former officer

A significant amount of social media and community discourse has been generated around the statement with regard to former officer Max Rogers.  

I believe it is important to address some of the questions and comments to help further clarify what happened and why.  – Stuart Betts, Chief, Peterborough Police Service.

Original Statement: https://www.peterboroughpolice.ca/news/posts/statement-from-stuart-betts-chief-peterborough-police-service/

1. Why was the Peterborough Police Service able to have input on the guilty plea process?

The Peterborough Police Service had originally identified the allegations and then asked the OPP to conduct the investigation.  This means the Service was afforded the opportunity to weigh in on matters.

As the Complainant in this case, and as would be consistent with all cases before the Court, the complainant is often consulted as the matter moves toward a resolution and/or trial.  

As Chief, I was advised that there was a possible resolution via a guilty plea, and although I was not aware to what charge Mr. Rogers would plead guilty to, I was agreeable to it, so long as it meant he would resign from the Peterborough Police Service. This would negate the need for a lengthy Police Hearing which would have potentially dragged on for several more years.

Would I have preferred that his plea was for one of the other charges? Yes; however, as my primary concern was that he no longer be employed as a police officer, I was accepting of a guilty plea on any charge so long as he resigned. This was ultimately in the best interest of the public.

The Peterborough Police Service remained in constant communication with OPP Investigators throughout this process and they kept us apprised of the potential resolution, and they were aware, that as the Chief of Police, and the complainant in this matter, what my interests were, in terms of ensuring he no longer remained a police officer.

2. What does this mean for Mr. Rogers' pension?

Mr. Rogers paid into his pension as an employee of an OMERS eligible Organization. He is lawfully entitled to his pension. Any pension-related questions or eligibility are in the purview of OMERS and has absolutely nothing to do with the Police Service.

3. Why was Mr. Rogers suspended with pay?

Because of the limitations of the Community Safety and Policing Act, I was not lawfully able to suspend Mr. Rogers without pay. As detestable as some will find that, it is the law.

Therefore, every day he remained a police officer, he was being paid a salary – that could have continued through a lengthy trial and an even longer Police Act hearing, both of which were available options to him as part of the Judicial process. In my view, stopping that from continuing was in the greater public interest.

4. Why was there a guilty plea and not a trial?

I believe the OPP had a strong case and would have supported a trial. This option is costly and as the main goal was that Mr. Rogers no longer be employed as a police officer, it was most appropriate that this decision be made. The nature of the charges did not directly impact any member of the public.

5. Will there be a Police Hearing on the matter?

As Mr. Rogers is no longer a police officer there will not be a police hearing on the matter. 

Any internal Police investigation and process cannot proceed until all Court proceedings (and possible appeal) have been concluded.

This resolution (resignation and guilty plea) served the interest of Mr. Rogers and the Peterborough Police Service.

But it ultimately serves the financial interest, in terms of cost-avoidance, of the taxpayer.

Had it not gone this route, as Chief, I was prepared to seek termination through the discipline process.

6. Comments that Mr. Rogers was treated differently and allowed to plead guilty because he was a police officer.

I would say to any member of the public that believes that, they are misinformed as to how the Justice System works. Guilty pleas are part of the system and a regular means by which many criminal cases are resolved. Mr. Rogers was before the courts as a police officer, but he was treated as any other citizen facing criminal charges would be treated.

In fact, he faced greater jeopardy, because he ultimately lost his job. There are very few professions where someone will lose their job because of a criminal conviction for this offence or the others.

Police officers should be held to a greater level of accountability, and this outcome demonstrates the seriousness of that – he will never become a police officer again. The same could not be said for most other professions.

A conviction will be registered; he is no longer a police officer; he is no longer being paid with tax dollars; the process ultimately saved time and money.

7. There is concern that there is more to the case that is not being looked at.

The OPP conducted the investigation into this matter. The Peterborough Police Service learned of the initial allegations and turned all further responsibility to them. As Chief, I have utmost confidence in their investigators and that if there were ongoing concerns, they would still be investigating.

Sandra Dueck
Manager, Strategic Communication Services
Peterborough Police Service
876@peterboroughpolice.ca
705-876-1122 x217