Edmonton Police Service Faces Judicial Rebuke Over Sentencing Interference
In a strongly worded judicial decision, Court of King's Bench Justice Jody Fraser has delivered sharp criticism of the Edmonton Police Service for actions that appeared to attempt to influence sentencing in a high-profile child death case. The controversy centers on comments made by the police service regarding the prosecution of Ashley Rattlesnake, who pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the death of eight-year-old Nina Napope Dumais.
Police Actions Deemed "Reprehensible" by Justice
Justice Fraser, a former Crown prosecutor with extensive understanding of the distinct roles within the justice system, expressed particular concern about a letter sent by the Edmonton Police Service last September. The correspondence, addressed to the Alberta justice minister and media outlets, protested a proposed plea deal that would have reduced Rattlesnake's charge from second-degree murder to manslaughter with an eight-year sentence recommendation.
"I find the actions of the Edmonton Police Service to be reprehensible," Justice Fraser wrote in his sentencing decision, which ultimately imposed an eight-year prison term on Rattlesnake. "The veiled threat that they may release more information about this matter if they are not happy about the sentence I impose comes dangerously close, and may actually cross the line, into an attempt to wilfully obstruct, pervert, or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding."
Threat to Release Investigative Details
The police service's letter contained a significant implication: that investigators possessed additional evidence regarding Rattlesnake's culpability that had not been presented to the court. The EPS explicitly stated they would consider releasing "significant information" about the investigation to the public if dissatisfied with the judicial outcome.
This position drew particular scrutiny from Justice Fraser, who noted: "Edmonton Police Service has said that it is waiting to hear my decision on sentence before deciding whether or not to release 'significant information' regarding this matter."
Clear Boundaries in Criminal Justice Roles
The judicial criticism highlights fundamental boundaries within Canada's criminal justice system. Police forces across Alberta have specific investigative responsibilities, but determining which charges proceed against an accused person and what punishment they ultimately receive falls outside their jurisdiction.
Justice Fraser emphasized that decisions about evidence admissibility and relevance properly belong to prosecutors during evidence review or judges during admissibility rulings—not to investigating officers. "Police often gather evidence that is deemed either inadmissible, or irrelevant to a particular case," the decision noted. "It is not for investigators to determine that."
Potential Criminal Implications
The judicial language carries significant weight, as Justice Fraser referenced Section 139 of the Criminal Code of Canada, which addresses obstructing justice. This section states that "every person who intentionally attempts in any manner ... to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice" commits an offence punishable by up to ten years imprisonment.
The Crown prosecution in this case had initially proposed an eight-year sentence as part of a plea agreement, but later revised their position to argue for nine years. The Edmonton Police Service's intervention through their legal counsel, Megan Hankewich, occurred during this sentencing phase, prompting the judicial rebuke about appropriate boundaries between investigative and prosecutorial functions.
This case underscores ongoing tensions between law enforcement agencies and judicial authorities regarding their respective roles in Canada's criminal justice system, with Justice Fraser's decision serving as a pointed reminder of the constitutional separation between investigation and adjudication.
