Injuries or fatalities are frequently the outcome of motor vehicle pursuits. However, it is the responsibility of the authorities to safeguard the public, stop crime, and catch criminals. In order to guarantee police accountability, Canadian courts had to strike a balance between the conflicting obligations placed on the force. The Ontario Regulation 546/99 is one of the laws that was passed. (Ontario, 2017). This essay examines the law, how it improves police accountability, its advantages, and how it might make it more difficult for the police to carry out their duties.
A suspect apprehension pursuit Act was first implemented in Ontario Regulation 546/99 in 1999. The Regulation was put in place to reduce incidents in which suspects were being chased by police cars and struck bystanders. According to Ontario (2017), the Act guides the police when they are directing suspects to stop and how they should initiate a pursuit of identifying the suspect or vehicle when the driver refuses to stop. Section 3 of the Regulation states that the police should believe that the suspect has committed a crime or is about to commit (Sewell, 2010). Therefore, they are accountable when they engage in reckless fatal incidences during the pursuit.
The Law has increased police accountability in some ways. First thing, prior to the establishment of the Law, the police could hit bystanders in traffic leading to death or fatal injuries as they pursuit suspects in vehicles and could not be held accountable (Sewell, 2010). However, the police are now required to justify their actions against the guidelines outlined in the legislation. Section 3 subsection 2 of the Act requires the chase using a vehicle only when there are no alternatives set out to pursue the suspect (Sewell, 2010). Section 3 subsection 1 (a) of the Legislation adds that the police should believe that a crime has been committed or about to be committed. That is, the police have to assess the situation before deciding to pursue the suspect. In this regard, the Legislation has enhanced police accountability by regulating circumstances and manner in which they engage in the pursuit.
Security officers owe the duty of care to the public when deciding to start and continue a pursuit. The duty of care extends also to the driver of the vehicle being pursued. Thanks to the court for acknowledging the need for balancing between officers’ duty to ensure public safety and apprehend criminals (Sewell, 2010). The Legislation ensures that the security officers act reasonably within statutory powers bestowed on them based on the circumstance. The court should also acknowledge that sometimes police officers make decisions with limited knowledge and information. Therefore, they should not impose standards of perfection and a mere error in judgment should not lead to negligence.
Nonetheless, there are various benefits of the Ontario Legislation 546/99. First thing, it ensures that the police uphold the standard of care. That is, they act reasonably within the statutory powers given to them (Cunningham & Griffiths, 1997). The police officers also keep in mind that they owe a duty of care before they initiate a pursuit. Therefore, they should first assess the benefits of the pursuit against the need for public safety before taking action (Sewell, 2010). Equally important, the police can now be held accountable in instances such as when an innocent third party is injured during the pursuit. Most of these actions were not possible before the establishment of the Legislation.
The legislation restricts the police from performing their duties in a number of ways. First, criminals are aware that a police is not allowed to pursue them in crowded areas (Ericson & Haggerty, 2005). They take this advantage to commit a crime and escape easily. In a case when a police officer lawfully pursuits a car of a suspect and accidentally hits a bystander, the police will be held accountable (Gilbert, 2010).
In conclusion, Ontario Legislation 546/99 has significantly reduced incidences of loss of innocent lives resulting from the pursuing suspects who try to escape. The legislation holds the police accountable for any negligible pursuit. In this regard, the courts have balanced the duties of the police of preventing crime and ensuring public safety by enforcing the duty and standard of care.
References
Cunningham, A. J., & Griffiths, C. T. (1997). Criminal justice in Canada: A primer. Toronto: Harcourt Brace.
Ericson, R. V., & Haggerty, K. D. (2005). Policing the risk society. Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press.
Gilbert, C. (2010, January 27). Safety top concern during police pursuits: Chief. Mid-north Monitor. Retrieved on July 15, 2017 from http://www.midnorthmonitor.com/2010/01/27/safety-top-concern-during-police-pursuits-chief
Ontario. (2017). O. Reg. 266/10: Suspect apprehension pursuits. Retrieved on July 15, 2017 from https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/r10266
Sewell, J. (2010). Police in Canada: The real story. Toronto, ON: J. Lorimer & Co.
