RCMP boss briefed about python deaths hours before decision about charge changed

Canada's top Mountiewas briefed on the investigation into the 2013 killing of two boys by a large python inCampbellton, N.B.,just hours before theRCMPchanged direction and decided to pursue criminal charges against the snake's owner, according to documents obtained by CBC News under the federal Access to Information Act.

The documents show "the commissioner" requested a personal briefing in February 2014 on the investigation into thedeaths of Connor and NoahBarthein August 2013.

The brothers, aged 6 and 4, were killed by a 3.8-metre long African rock python at a friend's house on asleepover.

At the time, Bob Paulson was the commissioner of the RCMP and continues to hold that position.

• RCMP's handling of python case challenged by Jean-Claude Savoie's lawyer
• Jean-Claude Savoie found not guilty in python deaths of 2 boys

The initial investigation, a review of thatinvestigation byRCMPin Nova Scotia, and a secondreview by the acting district commander for theRCMPin southeast New Brunswick all concluded that python owner Jean-ClaudeSavoieshould not be charged.

All felt it could not be proven Savoieshowed wanton and reckless disregard for the safety of others or that his actions were a marked departure from the actionsof anyone in a similar situation.

But fewer than 24 hours after a high-rankingRCMPofficer in New Brunswick spent 30 minutes on the telephoneexplaining to Paulsonwhy a charge of criminal negligence causing death was not warranted, theRCMPdecided to forward the case to the Crown prosecutor to pursue a charge, the documents show.

At 9:30 p.m. on Feb. 17, 2014, ChiefSupt. Wayne Gallant, theRCMP officer in charge of criminal operations in New Brunswick, sent anemailto other officers stating: "Commissioner having all the same reservations as we all have with this file.

"Spent the last half hour on the phone trying to explain why this does not meet the threshold for [criminal negligence]. Will know tomorrow what he wants to do and I will advise."

The following day at 11:51 a.m., Cpl. GabrielDeveau, who led the initial investigation and recommended no charges, wrotetoInsp. GerryBelliveau, the acting district commander in southeast New Brunswick,"I am informed the file is being submitted to a Crown."

'What do you mean this is going to the [C]rown? Somebody needs to explain this one to me.'- Insp. Gerry Belliveau, acting commander for RCMP in southeast New Brunswick

"What do you mean this is going to the [C]rown?" replied Belliveau, who carried out his own review of the case in February 2014 and concludedSavoieshould not be charged.

"Somebody needs to explain this one to me."

In New Brunswick, it is the Crown that ultimately decides whether a person is charged with a criminal offence.

Gallant and Belliveau are now retired from the RCMP.Gallant deferred a request for information to RCMP communications in Fredericton. Attempts to contact Belliveau were unsuccessful.

A request was also made by CBC News to interview Paulson about the information in the documents. He declined.

Found not guilty

Savoie, 40, stood trial for criminal negligence causing death in the fall of 2016.

A jury of four men and seven women found him not guilty after an eight-day trial that concluded on Nov. 9.The Crown chose not to appeal.

The python escaped through a ventilation pipe in the ceiling of its enclosure inSavoie'sapartment. The weight of the 24-kilogram snake then caused the ceiling tiles in the adjoining living room, where the boys were sleeping, to collapse.

"Snake scared when fell," states the handwritten notes of an investigator.

"This wasn't self-defence by snake."

The trial heard Savoiesaw the snake tryto escape onan earlier occasion, but it did not get all the way through the ventilation pipe, which was smaller in diameter.

The trial also heard that the dryer-like vent cover for the pipe was not secured and often on the enclosure floor.

Savoiedid not testify, but his lawyer argued the failed escape attempt reassuredSavoiethe snake could not get out through the pipe because of its size, so there was no need to secure the vent cover.

• RCMP'shandling of python case challenged by Jean-Claude Savoie's lawyer
• Jean-ClaudeSavoiefound not guilty in python deaths of 2 boys
• Python deaths trial: 6 key pieces of background

The trial also heard the boys had spent the day playing with animals at Savoie's father'sfarm, whereSavoieraised rabbits and other animals to feed the snake.

The smell of the animals on the boys may have led the snake to think the boys were prey, the trial heard.

Savoieassured of no charge

At the conclusion of the trial, a publication ban was lifted on documents showing thatDeveau, the lead investigator in the initial investigation, had given written assurance to Savoie's lawyer thatSavoiewould not be charged ifSavoieanswered four questions for theRCMP.

Savoie's lawyer, Leslie Matchim, argued that charging his client after giving written assurance that he wouldn't be charged was a violation of Savoie's constitutional right to remain silent to police and tried to have the case thrown out.

His motion was denied, but the answers provided bySavoiewere not allowed as evidence.

The initial investigation ended Nov. 22, 2013, withDeveauand Staff Sgt. Rick Potvin of the major crime unit signing off on a report that said the findings don't support an offence of criminal negligence causing death.

A briefing note about the investigation and decision not to pursue a charge was submitted to Paulson on Nov. 25, 2013.

Deveau's investigation was then reviewed by RCMP Cpl. M.R. Simms and Cpl. L.L. Cote from H Division in Nova Scotia. The investigationreview dated Dec. 10, 2013, agreed with Deveau.

"We agreewith Cpl.Deveauand no criminal charges are warranted in this matter," it states.

3rd review

EmailsshowBelliveaudid a third review of the file in February 2014 and also concluded a charge againstSavoiewas not warranted.

"Simply put, I do not see the elements of a Criminal Negligence," Belliveauwrote to Gallant on Feb. 13, 2014.

"I am very confident that the [C]rownwould agree with me."

Meanwhile, on Feb. 5, 2014,RCMPInsp. Marc Bertrand of Tracadie was appointed the lead investigator in the case, according to an affidavit by Bertrand that was submitted to the Court of Queen's Bench on April 5, 2016.

In his affidavit, Bertrand saidhe believeda charge againstSavoiewaswarranted.

"After my review of said file and of the evidence available, I came to the conclusion that reasonable and probablegrounds did in fact exist to charge the Applicant of a criminal offence under paragraph 226(b) of the Criminal Code and I then send, with the support of my superiors, the file to the Crown for consideration."

It appears Bertrand misstated the section of the Criminal Code in his affidavit, sinceSection 226(b) is a charge related to the acceleration of death, where a person causes a bodily injury that results in death. Criminal negligence causing death is Section 220(b) and is referred to by Bertrandat another point in his affidavit.

Bertrandsaid he was present for meetings of the provincial Attorney General's case consultation and risk management committee on Sept. 4, 2014 and Dec. 2, 2014. That committee ultimately decided there was enough evidence to justify chargingSavoie.

In his affidavit, Bertrand also saidDeveauwas not authorized to giveimmunity toSavoie.

The documents provided by theRCMPinclude one that is unsigned and in French that makes the case for a charge of criminal negligence, upon whichBelliveauwrote comments in English disputing some of the points.

For example, where the author states in French that Savoie's failure to secure the ventilation system showed a significant departure from what others would do,Belliveauwrites:"Wrong. It does not meet the threshold!"

At the bottom of the memo,Belliveauwrites: "When you look at the totality of the file, these points in combination with everything else amount to very little to support [for criminal negligence].

"On the other hand, plenty of info does support due diligence whether we like or dislike the owner.

"We do not have close to any evidence to support a charge."