In the wake of a damning report this summer accusing a Peel cop of “tampering” with the scene of a police-involved shooting, the regional force assured it would conduct a thorough review of its officers’ actions.

As public outcry grew over the Peel force’s handling of the September, 2014 shooting death of Jermaine Carby — and the revelation an officer had removed a knife from the scene of the shooting — Chief Jennifer Evans said she could not answer key questions about Carby’s death and its aftermath before the completion of the internal review.

But the results of the internal probe were presented to the Peel Police Services Board on Friday in secret — at a closed-door meeting with Evans.

Peel’s seven-member civilian board generally considers findings in such reviews to be “confidential,” and it’s not known whether the report addresses key questions about Carby’s death and its aftermath.

That includes what, if any, action has been taken to ensure Peel officers understand that they cannot interfere in a case where it’s evident the Special Investigations Unit, which probes officer-involved deaths, will be called in to conduct an independent investigation.

“By definition, in-camera reports are confidential. I am not in a position to comment on what may – or may not – have been discussed by the board in-camera,” Fred Biro, executive director of the police services board, said in an email.

Ontario’s Police Act states a police board “may” make administrative reviews — mandatory after the completion of an SIU probe — available to the public. But Biro says the Peel board “will normally consider administrative reviews in-camera because of the nature of the documents; confidential information, etc.”

“Administrative reviews into SIU matters are predominantly dealt with in-camera as provided for under the Police Services Act and FOI legislation,” Biro said.

No one from the board was available to comment on whether the report could eventually be publicly released, Biro said Monday.

Staff Sgt. Dan Richardson, spokesperson for Peel Regional Police, said it is now up to the board to determine if the report will be made public.

Carby, 33, was shot dead by an unnamed Peel officer on September 24, 2014, after the car in which he was a passenger was pulled over by an officer on patrol.

According to the SIU, the officer fired his gun in self-defence, after Carby became angry when asked about outstanding warrants and approached the police wielding a knife.

Tony Loparco, director of the SIU, ruled no charges against the officer were warranted, but issued a strongly worded rebuke of a Peel police officer for removing from the scene the knife officers said Carby was carrying.

For “several hours,” Loparco said, SIU investigators could not locate the weapon; it was later handed over by an acting Peel sergeant who said a responding officer had removed the knife, placed it in a paper bag and given it to a senior officer.

The “highly regrettable” decision “cast a pall over the integrity” of the SIU’s probe, Loparco said.

“The officer would have known at the time that Mr. Carby likely lay dead or grievously injured as a result of a police shooting and should have appreciated the importance of scene security in ensuring the integrity of the investigation that was sure to follow,” Loparco wrote.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

“The removal of the knife ensures that some members of the community will harbour concerns, legitimate concerns in my view, regarding the very existence of the knife.”

La Tanya Grant, Carby’s cousin, is among those with doubts about the existence of the knife. But she says she wants to see how Peel accounts for the officer’s actions and why he thought it was appropriate.

“We’re not even officers, and we know not to remove evidence from the scene,” she said on behalf of the Carby family, adding she is going to fight to see the administrative review.

Roger Love, one of the Carby family lawyers who works with the African Canadian Legal Clinic, said he is disappointed not to see the board acting in a more transparent manner.

“I think that, given what’s happened, they at least should have been open and discussed the matter at a public board meeting,” Love said.