Allegations that RCMP bosses harassed Surrey Six Mountie denied
Credit to Author: Keith Fraser| Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 00:16:58 +0000
Allegations by a disgraced RCMP officer involved in the Surrey Six murder investigation that his bosses harassed him and overworked him are being denied by the federal government.
David Alexander Attew, who was a senior investigator in the notorious gangland murder case from 2007, filed a lawsuit claiming that at the time he was assigned to the case he was already suffering from deteriorating health due to injuries from a motor vehicle accident and overwork.
He claims that his supervisors were aware of the health issues, but asked him to assume the role of team leader in the Surrey Six investigation and that over time, his workload increased significantly and caused his mental health problems to continue to deteriorate.
Attew pleaded guilty to an offence under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act that involved him kissing and touching a witness while he was alone in a room with her. In January, he received a six-month conditional sentence.
He claims in his lawsuit that an added stress caused by the RCMP was that he was told if he wanted to proceed to trial in his misconduct case, he would have to pay the legal costs, to the tune of $200,000 to $400,000, which ultimately resulted in him entering a guilty plea.
But in a response filed by a lawyer with the federal justice department, Attew’s allegations regarding his RCMP superiors are denied.
The response says that Attew’s claims cannot go ahead because he was required to file an action regarding the alleged damages within two years after the date on which the right to sue arose.
Based on his notice of civil claim, the date the right to sue arose was as early as the fall of 2008 or as late as June 2010, says the response.
“Accordingly, based on the plaintiff’s own allegations, which are denied, the plaintiff’s claims have now expired and are statute-barred.”
The response alleges furthermore that Attew unduly delayed or acquiesced in the delay in bringing his lawsuit.
“At all material times, the plaintiff had full knowledge of any and all facts to support bringing this claim in a timely manner. Additionally, the plaintiff had retained his own lawyer, which meant that he had the benefit of legal advice.”
Attew’s suggestion that he only pleaded guilty to avoid the financial burden of defending himself at trial amounts to an “impermissible collateral attack” on the conviction, says the response.
“Even if the plaintiff was suffering from stress related to legal funding at the time, he was nevertheless represented by counsel when he pleaded guilty to those charges and had the benefit of legal advice.”