To Whom it May Concern:

[1] We are writing in response to a complaint submitted to your office by Caitlin Dick in relation
to the presentation to our class made by Staff Sgt. Bill Clark.

[2] While we acknowledge and respect Ms. Dick’s concerns, we would like to take this
opportunity to provide much needed context to the complaints made. We believe that in the
context of the lecture, many of Staff Sgt. Clark’s comments served important learning objectives
and lacked malice.

[3] We found the presentation by Staff Sgt. Clark to be extremely valuable and informative. Staff
Sgt. Clark provided detailed information about police procedure and shared crime scene photos
along with personal stories to provide context. This created an immersive experience which
allowed students to empathize with the challenges of police work. Given that our class includes
a number of future criminal lawyers who will likely find themselves examining police officers on
the witness stand, we appreciated Staff Sgt. Clark’s candour in this regard. Additionally, Staff
Sgt. Clark was open about many of his own biases and the way they have negatively affected
his work in the past. He explained that the biases that come with a lifetime of working in law
enforcement can present real challenges for officers and lawyers alike.

[4] As the complaints alleged by Ms. Dick are substantial and span a range of topics, we have
chosen to address each comment (as articulated in the Edmonton Journal article) individually.

[5] The Edmonton Journal article states that “Early on in the lecture, Dick alleges [Staff Sgt.]
Clark asked the class to raise their hands to show whether they wanted to be prosecutors or
defence lawyers, who Clark called “the bad guys.’” This quotation is accurate. However, we are
confident that it was made in jest and with no intended malice. This is a common ice breaking
question in criminal law classes regardless of whether an instructor or guest speaker works for
the defence or prosecution.

[6] The article goes on to state that Ms. Dick “...also claims [Staff Sgt.] Clark made comments
suggesting suspects are given differential treatment depending on how much he likes their
lawyer, saying he only allows lawyers to see their clients ‘if they’re respectful’”. This was not an
attack on Charter or other rights. Prior to this comment, Staff Sgt. Clark explained that while
people who are under arrest do have a right to speak to their lawyer on the phone, they do not
have a right to see their lawyer in person. He then went on to indicate that despite this limitation
in the Charter, he and many other police officers are willing to make concessions for lawyers
that are respectful and professional. We understood this comment as an attempt to impart the
importance of professionalism and treating colleagues with respect.

[7] Next, the Journal says that “Dick alleges that [Staff Sgt.] Clark then told the students to come
say hello if they ever bump into him in court but then added with a laugh that if “you’re on the
good side I’ll say hi, if you’re on the bad side I’ll say f— you.””. We are unsure of the exact
phrasing used by the Staff Sgt. However, in any event, the comment was clearly made in jest.
Staff Sgt. Clark was not the only one laughing. Far from imparting any malice, this comment
was again indicative of the friendly rivalry shared between Crown and Defense lawyers in the
justice system.

[8] The article goes on to state that “Dick also alleges that [Staff Sgt.] Clark referred to a victim
bludgeoned to death with a hammer as being from an ‘East Indian family’”. Dick said she raised
her hand to ask why he mentioned that victim’s race, to which she claims [Staff Sgt.] Clark
replied, “I dunno, because they were.’” Again, this quotation is largely accurate. However, it was
said in the context of a discussion surrounding a crime scene photo. Students were asked to put
themselves in the shoes of officers entering a crime scene to determine if the death was the
result of a homicide, accident, or suicide. The family’s race was one of several biographical
features that Staff Sgt. Clark eventually provided when contextualizing the scene as a homicide.
Staff Sgt. Clark also noted that the house was fairly clean, there was a child in the bed with the
accused, that the family had no previous interactions with police and that the person convicted
of the homicide was suffering from a serious mental illness. Any of these factors in isolation may
appear to be discriminatory. However, in context they allowed students to understand the
challenges faced by first responders entering a crime scene with limited information. While
some of us would have liked to see Staff Sgt. Clark comment on the possibility of his own bias,
he was clearly put on the spot and caught off guard by the question.

[9] The article goes on to state that “[Staff Sgt.] Clark also referred to an ‘ongoing battle with
Tom Engel,’ saying they share a mutual hatred…”. This quotation is accurate to what transpired
in class. Staff Sgt. Clark made this statement in the context of a discussion regarding the
tumultuous relationships that can arise between police and defense lawyers in situations where
police officers feel disrespected or where lawyers fail to understand the traumatic situations
police officers face on a daily basis. Staff Sgt. Clark followed this by indicating that he
understands that defense lawyers have important work to do and are an essential part of the
court system.

[10] The article concludes with Ms. Dick’s allegations that “[Staff Sgt.] Clark referred to criminals
as maggots, expressed support for the death penalty, and said the age at which someone can
be tried as an adult should be lowered ‘because 14-year-olds are just absolute criminals.’” Staff
Sgt. Clark did express these views, but they were each expressed in the context of a broader
discussion.

[11] Staff Sgt. Clark did refer to criminals as maggots. He said that while he recognizes he
should change his vocabulary, he has seen so much trauma and pain caused by criminals that
he finds it difficult to update his wording. He was admitting his biases and discussing the
challenges that tunnel vision and biases can create in police work. That being said, while we
believe that the context of the statements is important, we do not share Staff Sgt. Clark’s view or
opinion on this matter.

[12] As mentioned in the article, Staff Sgt. Clark did address the death penalty. In doing so, he
indicated that with everything he has witnessed during his tenure as a homicide detective, he
would not oppose the re-introduction of capital punishment in some cases. We feel that Staff
Sgt. Clark was entitled to the expression of this opinion even if others may not share it.

[13] The Staff Sgt. also spoke about reducing the age of criminal responsibility. He then
explained that in his experience, fourteen-year old’s can commit heinous crimes worse than
those committed by adults and that seeing these crimes prosecuted in youth court can be very
frustrating. This was a personal opinion based on years of police work and by expressing it,
Staff Sgt. Clark helped students understand the frustrations many police officers have when
interacting with the court system.

[14] As a whole, Staff Sgt. Clark’s presentation to our class was informative and helpful. While
some of his phrasing was indeed problematic, he made clear efforts to recognize and explain
his biases. Additionally, Staff Sgt. Clark took time to prepare and deliver a presentation to a
group of law students without compensation. Many of those students will eventually work for the
criminal defence bar. This demonstrates that Staff Sgt. Clark respects the criminal defense bar
and the role they play in the justice system.

[15] We hope that these submissions are helpful to the Commission in addressing the
complaint. If further assistance is required, we have attached the names and contact information
of two students who are willing to provide further comment on this matter.

Respectfully,

Taylor Chartier, Emma Cox, Andrea (Draya) De Klerk, Cheyla Lachowsky, Nicolas Lindal,
Matthew McCarthy, and Chasidy Yanda with the full support of 7 additional law students who
were also present at the lecture on November 1st, 2018.