Police watchdog found grounds for criminal charges in autistic boy's skull fracture—Crown declined prosecution

A Calgary police officer will not face criminal charges after injuring a 12-year-old autistic boy on August 21, 2018, despite Alberta's police watchdog concluding the officer should have known his actions would cause serious injury.

The boy became unruly at his suburban Calgary home and began damaging his bedroom after being locked inside. His parents, unable to calm him after he'd gone several days without his medication, called Calgary Police Service requesting assistance to take him to Alberta Children's Hospital for crisis intervention.

When two officers arrived, they were told the boy hadn't taken his medication and would likely become more upset seeing police. As officers attempted to remove the loudly protesting boy, one released his grip, leaving his partner to control him alone. The officer held both the boy's arms behind his back against the police vehicle with his right leg positioned between the boy's legs. According to video surveillance and witnesses, the officer then used a rapid twisting motion combined with a downward movement to take the boy to the ground. Witnesses heard a crack as the boy's head forcefully struck the pavement.

The boy suffered a basal skull fracture that did not require surgery. His father complained the officer had used excessive force; the officer replied, "I didn't mean it."

The Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT) concluded the officer should have known the action he took would lead to injury, possibly a serious one. "When you bring someone down to pavement forcefully the head is a very likely spot for this injury," ASIRT stated in its report. "All blows to the head risk serious injury. Another officer was present and only a meter away if the subject officer required assistance."

ASIRT referred the case to the Alberta Crown Prosecution Office and found reasonable grounds to believe an offence had been committed. However, last May, prosecutors recommended no charges be laid. ASIRT noted that while it found reasonable grounds for prosecution, the Crown applies a different standard, considering whether sufficient evidence exists for likely conviction and whether prosecution is in the public interest. "Based on the opinion provided by the Crown, no charges will be laid," ASIRT said.