Investigating Police Officers Are Not Able to Provide Victim Impact Statements

Our latest Canlii Connects case summary takes a quick look at a recent BC Supreme Court case which considered the scope of who can be considered a victim of an offence for the purpose of providing a victim impact statement.

R. v. Taber, 2022 BCSC 652

Issue: Can the investigating officer be considered a “victim” for the purpose of providing a “victim impact statement”?

Facts: Mr. Taber was convicted of a variety of sexual offences against a minor. At his sentencing the Crown sought to file with the court a statement from the lead investigator describing the impact that this investigation had on him, including a deterioration in his mental health and heightened anxiety about his children.

The definition of a victim is broad but not infinite - there must be a link to the offence

Ruling:  The investigating officer did not fall under the definition of victim. His statement was also inadmissible as a community impact statement. 

Section 2 of the Criminal Code defines who can be considered a victim of an offence. Who is included in that definition has been expanded over the years, specifically in relation to victim impact statements, to include both the person to whom the offending harm was done and those directly affected by the harm, sometimes referred to as direct victims and victims directly affected. Some examples include family members of homicide victims and police officers who were present when the offence was committed.

The case law employs a flexible interpretation of "victim", but still requires an "inextricable connection between the person seeking to introduce a victim impact statement and the offence at issue". 

Ultimately Matthews J. held that “an investigating officer, even one investigating a violent, disturbing crime involving graphic evidence, has an inextricable connection such that it could be said that Parliament intended that they be entitled to give evidence at the sentencing of the offender”.

The statement was not a community impact statement as it only referenced the impact on the officer himself and not the broader community.