“Why not go out with him?” » The Administrative Tribunal for Police Ethics blames a City of Montreal police officer who minimized the testimony of a victim by describing his harasser as physically “attractive”.
The comments of ex-sergeant Martin Bouchard “tarnish the image of the police services and undermine the public trust and consideration that the function requires,” underlines the decision rendered earlier in April.
In the fall of 2019, Anastasia Boldireff was followed and contacted several times by Adamo Bono, a dangerous sex offender who would later plead guilty to two criminal harassment charges.
On November 7, she went to neighborhood station 20 of the Montreal City Police Service (SPVM) to file a complaint.
At reception, agent Kevin Jacob asks him to come back later, as all the agents are busy. When he returns, he is still at reception and begins processing his complaint.
The following discussion is the subject of conflicting versions. At one point, Agent Jacob seeks help from his superior, Sergeant Martin Bouchard.
According to Mme Boldireff, the latter asks him to describe his harasser. “He looks attractive.” A soccer player, you say. Why not go out with him? »he would have replied in English.
Sergeant Bouchard – who is no longer employed by the SPVM – denies this exchange. He claims to have no memory of asking for a physical description of the suspect, as this is not relevant at this stage of the investigation. An implausible explanation, argues the Court.
Accepting the complainant’s version, he harshly disapproves of the police officer’s comments which “lead a woman who believes she is a victim to understand that she should not worry, because her potential harasser is “good looking” “.
“Inappropriate” advice
Before leaving the post, Mme Boldireff asks if she can be taken home, fearing for her safety. She was told that there was no patrol vehicle available and that she must return to her home on her own.
Sergeant Bouchard advises her to stay on rue Sainte-Catherine, to avoid the alleys and to speak loudly if she encounters the suspect. “You should be careful what you wear,” he allegedly added, which he disputes.
Once again, the Court accepts the complainant’s version. He cites an extract from the statement of Lieutenant Laurent Lisio about an informal meeting with Sergeant Bouchard, which occurred shortly after the complaint was filed.
“He claims to have wanted to advise her on her clothing, it was not to insult her, but to advise her to be careful when walking in the city center,” he testified to the investigator.
In his testimony before the Tribunal, Lieutenant Lisio however retracted, affirming that Sergeant Bouchard had denied this exchange during their meeting.
The Court is of the opinion that the most probable version is the one that was told to the investigator at a time closer to the complaint.
Extract from the decision of the Administrative Tribunal of Police Ethics
These comments, “based on old mentalities”, suggest that a “better choice of clothing could avoid unwanted attention from men”, denounces the decision.
“A victim might choose not to report if they think they will not be believed, that they will be ridiculed, or even that they will not be taken seriously if they are not the “perfect” victim. that she may not have said or done the right thing or that she had made a bad choice of clothing,” the Court continues.
“Shared feelings”
In an interview, Anastasia Boldireff said she was “grateful” for the Court’s decision, although she had “mixed feelings”.
The main message is that this should never have happened. Reporting a sexual crime or harassment should never feel like asking for insurance.
Anastasia Boldireff
Note that the Commission on Human Rights and Youth Rights also took up the matter.
In his complaint, Mme Boldireff also criticized agent Kevin Jacob for commenting on her appearance, telling him, “I’m sure being a beautiful woman gets you in trouble.” »
However, these comments were only reported months later, the decision indicates. Furthermore, Mme Boldireff does not remember exactly the words spoken during his testimony.
On the other hand, Mr. Jacob testifies in a “clear and frank” manner, notes the Court, which, for all these reasons, concludes that he did not commit an ethical error.
reference: www.lapresse.ca