Handling of sex abuse allegations against former chief's son spotlighted at inquiry

Cornwall Standard Freeholder

11 March 2008

Posted By Trevor Pritchard

Editor's note: Due to technical difficulties the following article regarding Friday's testimony at the Cornwall Public Inquiry was not published. The inquiry will return March 31. There were serious flaws in sexual abuse investigations involving the son of a former police chief, but not enough evidence to suggest Earl Landry Jr. received "preferential treatment," the Cornwall Public Inquiry heard Friday.

Staff Sgt. Garry Derochie was assigned to look into how police handled the Landry Jr. investigation the day after the former city employee pleaded guilty in August 1999 to sexually abusing five boys.

The assaults took place between 1979 and 1990, and for much of that time Landry Jr. worked as a park custodian for the city.

His father, Earl Landry Sr., was police chief from 1974 to 1984.

As the Cornwall Police Service's professional standards officer, it was Derochie's responsibility for much of the 1990s to probe into controversial police investigations.

two reviews

He conducted two reviews of the Landry case, including one in 1999 that looked into why some of Landry Jr.'s victims were unhappy with the way they were treated by police.

And a second one in 2000-01 that probed what role Landry Jr.'s family connections played.

It was the first of those reviews that came under the microscope Friday.

Derochie testified he was assigned to perform the review by then-chief Anthony Repa, after the force learned through articles in the Standard-Freeholder that some of Landry Jr.'s victims were angry at how long it took for police to take their allegations seriously. His 1999 review, Derochie said, focused on two victims: one who brought his complaints forward in 1985, and a second who made allegations in 1995.

Neither man can be identified.

Derochie said one of the first officers he approached was Ron Lefebvre, who conducted the 1985 investigation.

Lefebvre told him there wasn't enough evidence to press charges, and the victim - who was between eight and 10 years old at the time - was mentally challenged and would have made a "poor" witness, said Derochie.

He also learned that Landry Jr. had originally been willing to undergo a polygraph exam, but Landry Sr. later called Lefebvre and said his son had changed his mind.

It was also "unfortunate" that there was a lack of communication between city police and the Children's Aid Society, Derochie said.

"And do you know, sir, if doing joint investigations with the CAS with children of that age, eight to 10, was the norm back in the mid-80s?" asked lead commission counsel Peter Engelmann.

"Oh, I would think so," said Derochie. "I would hope so."

When the second man came forward in 1995, lead investigator Scott Hanton concluded there was - once again - insufficient evidence to lay a charge, Derochie said.

Hanton did suggest the case be reassigned to the force's sexual assault and child abuse unit, Derochie said.

case bounced around

But by the time Landry Jr. confessed to his crimes in May 1997, the case had been "bounced around from investigator to investigator," as Derochie wrote in his final report.

Derochie told Engelmann police only sped up their investigation after the victim threatened to go to the media with his concerns.

Even though Landry Jr.'s father was chief, Derochie concluded in his report that he didn't receive "preferential treatment."

However, while the allegation was an important "collateral" issue, it was never the focus of his first review, Derochie said.

It's expected Derochie's second review - which looked more closely at the involvement of Landry Sr. -will be discussed in-depth when the inquiry resumes March 31.