• Home Page
• Publications
• 2006
• 2005
• 2004
• 2003
• 2002
• 2001
• 2000
• 1999
• 1998
• 1997
• 1996
• 1995
   
• Triennial Plan
• Policies
• Contact Us

1. 5. EVALUATION FINDINGS
1. 5.1 Relevance
2. 5.2 Design and Delivery: Implementation
3. 5.3 Success
4. 5.4 Effectiveness/Other Strategies

Previous Page | Table of Contents | Next Page

5. EVALUATION FINDINGS

5.1 Relevance

• The Initiative’s objectives are consistent with government priorities as stated inRed Book III (federal government platform) and the National Agenda. The Initiative also responds directly to the House of Commons Sub-Committee on Organized Crime. This Sub-Committee recommended specific legislative enhancements including new criminal organization offences, as well as non-legislative measures to ensure that existing legislation and resources are used to their fullest potential.

• Key informants also agreed that the Initiative objectives continue to be relevant and necessary to respond to the increasingly sophisticated nature of organized crime activities. They also advocated expanding Initiative resources in order to keep pace with the growth in organized crime activities and in police investigations of organized crime.

5.2 Design and Delivery: Implementation

• While Initiative activities have not been fully implemented as they were originally designed, work has been undertaken towards achieving the Initiative objectives. Resources were cited as a major constraint in the implementation of the Intensive Federal Prosecution Strategy as it was originally designed. However, information on the Initiative is inadequate to fully assess its progress. The limited financial information available complicates the evaluation’s ability to attribute specific activities to the Initiative. In addition, there is limited performance data available on the Initiative.

• While only two regional offices ( Vancouver and Toronto ) have prosecutors dedicated to providing pre-charge advice and assistance, all regions reported that they provide an increasing amount of advice at the pre-charge stage, often using an integrated approach across DOJ initiatives. Not all regions are providing the level of pre-charge advice under the IFPS that they would like. However, the dedication of prosecutors exclusively to an advisory role was not seen as the best or most efficient approach by all of the FPS directors. It was not seen as the most efficient use of the resources available as not all investigations lead to charges, and courtroom experience is also seen as essential for prosecutors.

• Disclosure management is also handled in a variety of ways. Currently, the Ontario and Ottawa-Gatineau regions have prosecutors working directly in RCMP detachments. Ontario has recently expanded an earlier disclosure pilot project to the Toronto Police Service’s drug squad, and Ottawa-Gatineau has introduced disclosure counsel and two legal assistants into the Kingston RCMP detachment. However, at this time, it is not known whether these new disclosure units are receiving funding under the Initiative. Halifax, Montreal, and Vancouver have developed or are in the process of developing disclosure protocols that are intended to improve the timeliness and completeness of disclosure. While other regional offices rely on unwritten understandings with police for handling disclosure.

• Ottawa-Gatineau, Halifax, Edmonton, Toronto, and Vancouver have dedicated organized crime prosecutors and organized crime prosecution teams. The other regional offices may have prosecutors who work primarily on organized crime files, but do not have specified organized crime teams. For most offices, the team approach was not an innovation; they already had teams (for example, major case teams, proceeds of crime teams). For the Initiative, they either combined these teams with designated organized crime prosecutors or they made the organized crime focus more explicit in the pre-existing teams. To staff dedicated teams, additional senior prosecutor positions were seen as necessary and additional paralegals and other support staff would fill a critical need. The issue that dedicated teams may not be the best approach was also raised, as flexibility in staffing is considered necessary so that offices can allocate staff to best meet the needs of their caseloads.

• Initiative funding does not create new responsibilities for the International Assistance Group (IAG) but helps fund its current work and the expected increase in international legal assistance requests stemming from the Initiative. For this reason, IAG appears to have fully implemented its Initiative activities. IAG has also continued to work with the Lyon Group (established after the 1995 G-8 summit) on issues of transnational organized crime.

• While there have been extensive stakeholder consultations around Bill C-24, consultations have not continued at the same level on the remaining National Agenda items in part because the events of September 11, 2001 shifted the focus to terrorism. Key informants reported that while consultations about the National Agenda continue, the original plan to broaden the consultations beyond established institutional links has not occurred.

• Legislative training of federal, provincial, and municipal law enforcement, prosecutors, and other justice officials has occurred each year since the Initiative was announced.

• Research into organized crime issues and tools has also been ongoing. The largest project involves developing a definition of an FPS organized crime file, which will enable accurate national reporting and monitoring of organized crime files handled by the FPS. This work should result in the ability to conduct large-scale national studies of organized crime files in the future.

• Over half of the prosecutors and paralegals interviewed for the evaluation could not comment on how well their office manages the IFPS, and, similarly, half of the FPS directors could not offer an opinion on the management of the Initiative. Part of the reason for this is their level of awareness of the IFPS and the larger Initiative.

• FPS directors and DOJ officials at headquarters believe that management could be improved through more cooperation between the policy and prosecution levels of DOJ and by implementing a better reporting structure where requirements are clearly established. DOJ officials at headquarters also mentioned the need among horizontal partners to share information, and one suggested that a central directing authority be considered. Prosecutor’s main suggestions for improvement were related to increased resources, particularly for paralegals and technical support, and developing disclosure protocols.

5.3 Success

• Recent studies conducted by DOJ of training activities show that approximately 1,742 individuals have received training on Bill C-24 from DOJ. The training was well received; participants found it relevant to their jobs and thought that it helped them understand the legislative provisions. Key informant interviews supported these findings; most said that the training improved their knowledge of Bill C-24. In addition, there was evidence that some attendees of training sessions used their knowledge to train others.

• In addition to training on Bill C-24, the evaluation found that training has also been conducted on topics such as pre-charge advice, preparing court and Crown briefs, and disclosure management.

• It appears that partnerships with local law enforcement agencies have been enhanced and that horizontal Initiative partnerships have been effective. More regular contact between DOJ and the RCMP during organized crime prosecutions has reduced territoriality and increased openness. However, some officials commented that DOJ is not as well integrated with the RCMP, as it would like to be. While the understanding of each department’s culture has increased, implementation of the Initiative is seen as lagging, particularly in disclosure management. P rosecutors are also divided on whether IFPS has affected their working relationships with partner agencies. Those who have noticed an improvement are uncertain if it can be attributed to the Initiative. The fact that RCMP management is seen as supportive of Initiative activities while front-line staff are more hesitant may account for these differences.

• In addition to the formal partners, the Initiative also encourages building new partnerships at the federal, provincial or municipal levels. However, few new partnerships have been formed.

• While it is still too early to fully assess the effects of the Initiative on case preparation, investigations, and prosecutions, initial findings show that improvements have been noted in some areas. Most key informants believe that the IFPS has improved disclosure management, crediting the use of disclosure protocols and better teamwork with police. Likewise, about half believe that improvements in organized crime investigations and prosecutions have occurred as a result of the Initiative and/or Bill C-24. For investigations, Bill C-24 received the most credit for giving police more flexibility in conducting investigations and for providing a clear mandate to pursue criminal organizations. For prosecutions, the legislation reduces prosecutorial burden for proving the criminal organization offence, and the stiffer sentencing provisions act as a deterrent and as an incentive in plea negotiations. Key informants also commended the dedicated prosecution resources from the IFPS (pre-charge advice, prosecutors, and teams).

5.4 Effectiveness/Other Strategies

• Because organized crime prosecutions can take years to conclude, the Initiative requires many years of operation before the effects will become apparent and measurable. Therefore, examining an issue such as effectiveness is still premature after only three years. However, according to some FPS directors and DOJ officials, resource allocation may influence future effectiveness. Initiative resources could be better distributed to meet staffing needs and to provide DOJ with more support so that it can keep pace with complex organized crime investigations.

• Key informants made several policy and legislative suggestions that in their view would assist organized crime investigations and prosecutions. It is important to note that these suggestions reflect the opinions of the key informants and that other perspectives outside of the DOJ are not included in this evaluation. In particular, they mentioned reforms in rules of criminal procedure to facilitate the flow of cases through the system such as setting notice requirements and timelines for defence applications and the codification of disclosure rules. They made suggestions to improve proceeds legislation, including placing the onus on those convicted to prove that assets were gained legitimately. They would like changes in the law to encourage collaboration with law enforcement, such as harsh minimum sentences, no mandatory parole, and the ability to require individuals to submit to questions under oath if they are guaranteed immunity. Some key informants suggested that certain procedures be relaxed such as the need to update static wiretaps over the course of the investigation and the process to gain access to third-party records. They also advocated adopting preservation orders that temporarily require the preservation of electronic evidence until a production order can be obtained.

Previous Page | Table of Contents | Next Page