A bail decision in a high-profile child sex assault case will be made this week.
Crown and defence in the Taylor Dueck case made their submissions at the bail hearing on March 6. The judge reserved and is expected to give a decision regarding Dueck’s potential freedom ahead of a trial on March 14 at Kelowna Law Courts, BC Prosecution Service said Monday
Dueck was arrested and charged with sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching and breach of probation after an alleged incident in February, involving an 11-year-old girl in the bathroom of a Kelowna equestrian facility.
Lower Mainland RCMP in 2020 issued a warning about Dueck under the Privacy Act of Canada because he had been deemed a high risk to reoffend sexually. Police said at the time that he posed a risk to the safety of female children under the age of 18 years old.
When he was released into Kelowna prior to recent allegations, RCMP did not issue a Public Interest Disclosure, saying the threshold had not been deemed to have been met by the agency with “the best and most recent knowledge of the subject.”
“While we cannot speak for other agencies, the BC RCMP has been very proactive with issuing a PID when we become aware of a person’s release into one of our communities,” Cpl. Michael Gauthier said in a statement.
Get daily National news
“I can confirm that a PID was sought prior to his release in Kelowna, however, the threshold was not met in this case based on the totality of the circumstances.”
An RCMP-led PID is typically issued under subsection 8.2 of the Privacy Act, as it’s their primary responsibility to notify the public of a violent or dangerous offender, who is a high risk to re-offend and represents a serious and imminent threat to the community.
Clark said the authority for the release of personal information under this subsection rests with the “head of the institution,” which, in the case of the RCMP, is delegated by the commissioner to the commanding officer of a division.
“Prior to any public disclosure or notification, there is a rigorous test to determine a) is the Public Interest Disclosure process the appropriate process; and b) whether the circumstances warrant the extraordinary use of the PID process,” Clark said in an email.
“To put it clearly, we must first answer several questions, such as, ‘Can the proposed disclosure be made some other way?’ and, ‘Is another agency responsible for the disclosure?’ and, ‘Are there factors that make the individual more or less of a risk to the public?’”
Clark added that the RCMP respect that provincial and municipal agencies in BC would need to consider and submit under the provisions within the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which would also be subject to additional scrutiny by the Federal or Provincial Privacy Commissioner, to ensure compliance with the act that applies.
“Regardless of whether a PID was issued for someone upon a previous release from custody, the test must be applied anew to their current circumstances,” Clark said.
“While we cannot speak for other agencies, the BC RCMP has been very proactive with issuing a PID when we become aware of a person’s release into one of our communities. I can confirm that a PID was sought prior to his release in Kelowna, however, the threshold was not met in this case based on the totality of the circumstances.
“To be clear, I can’t say that the RCMP was the appropriate agency to issue a PID in this case . For an RCMP-led PID, the authority to approve the disclosure rests with the CO (as delegated by the RCMP Commissioner) however, the test is applied by an investigative team under the advice and guidance of Subject Matter Experts.”
In an October 2022 decision, the board pointed out that Dueck had been on some form of court-ordered supervision or had been serving a jail sentence exclusively for offenses involving sexual violence, without any real break, for nearly the previous nine years.
At that time, a psychological risk assessment was completed and Dueck was found to be “well above average risk for future sexual offending.” The assessor, in that case, said Dueck could re-offend at any time if he came across a female, of any age, he viewed as “weaker or easily manipulated/controlled.”
Comments