PC Phillip Garbutt walked free on Tuesday after his common-law wife withdrew assault charges against him. However, the dismissal has sparked controversy, as Garbutt was also charged with assaulting her eight-year-old son.
So, how were charges involving a minor allowed to be dropped? According to the Minister of Human Development, the court's decision was a grave oversight by the presiding magistrate.
The Minister joined us via Zoom to explain the procedural failure.
Thea Garcia Ramirez, Minister of Human Development
"On Tuesday the social workers from the Department of Human Development, that is the department dealing with cases involving children, was not there because they were not summoned to court because all that should have happened in court on Tuesday was disclosure. And so there was no need for us to be summoned, for the case workers to be summoned nor the prosecutor. No one was summoned because it was simply disclosure. it's a great oversight is you will because what happened was outside of the protocol, they weren't there to get anything but disclosure on the case, the child was there because he was part of the case. And what happened outside of protocol was that the mother was allowed to drop the charges and what didn't happen was my understanding is that there was an oversight, a grave oversight by the magistrate who did not really verify what were all the charges because there was one obviously for the mother and there was a separate charge for what happened to the child. The magistrate in this instance did not follow the protocol that has been established for these types of cases and I believe erroneously dismissed the case, the arresting officer wasn't there, the arresting officer wasn't there, the social worker wasn't there to say wait that's not what we're here for and there are other things to consider before you dismiss the charges."
Garcia also told us what the department is now doing to ensure the child's safety.
Thea Garcia Ramirez, Minister of Human Development
"Tomorrow we go back in and ask for a supervision order that will allow social workers and case workers from the department of human services to access the child and the home to verify without any advance notice to drop in and verify the physical and emotional integrity of the child so that's a supervisory order. We're also going to ask for a protection order on behalf of the child and that means that the stepfather will not be able to have any access to the home or the school or anywhere the child normally is. A lot of people on social media are asking why a protection order was not done before. It wasn't done because according to our investigation and according to what we know from the social workers, the stepfather after the incident removed himself and left the house so we didn't feel that at the time that was necessary because he had already left and we had been keeping up with the case and there was no need to. We are going back now and doing the supervision and the protection order so we can verify now that the case is thrown that he does not come back into the household because that cannot happen."
"One of the things we don't like to do is to take children away from their homes. By all accounts, the child, as you can see, loves his mom very much, willing to stand up to anyone to defend his mother, to defend a person he loves. I don't think or the social workers and case workers do not think at this time that any benefit can come from removing the child from this home, he's very attached to his siblings, he's very attached to his mom, and once there is no danger or threat to him from inside that home, we think the best thing is to leave him in that family setting. He is now receiving psychological support and therapy because obviously we do not believe that this is the first time this incident occurred so we're working with the family, working with the mom and working with the child in order for him to reestablish himself and in order for him to heal."
