Friends and family gathered to drum and sing on the steps of the Prince George Court House this afternoon during the final day of the BC Coroners Inquest into the death of Alexander Charles Joseph.
Joseph was a member of Nak’azdli First Nation who struggled with addiction.
He died on Oct. 4, 2018, of a fentanyl-related overdose while he was being transported with eight other prisoners in a corrections van between Prince George and Maple Ridge.
Over the last four days, a five-person jury and presiding coroner Lyn Blenkinsop have heard testimony aimed at shedding light on the circumstances of his death.
Upon conclusion of the inquiry, the jury will have the opportunity to make recommendations aimed at preventing similar deaths.
Joseph was given CPR by the corrections officers and two passersby when the van stopped on the side of the road near 100 Mile House to seek assistance from an RCMP officer who happened to be pulled over.
However, the prisoners stated they were trying to alert the guards of an emergency around the time the van was in Williams Lake.
During the final day’s proceedings, the jury heard testimony from corrections officer James Brown, deputy warden Jeff Maduke and warden for provincial initiatives Steve DiCastri.
Throughout the four-day inquiry, one of the issues frequently referenced was the corrections officers’ inability to hear the prisoners in the back of the corrections vehicles.
The van in question was a larger z-class vehicle outfitted with cells that consisted of layers of plexiglass and bars. It was also equipped with a video monitoring system and audio-intercom and radio.
Corrections Officer Bruce Cox, who was driving, had previously testified the officers were experiencing difficulty with the audio system in the vehicle.
James Brown, the corrections officer in the passenger seat tasked with monitoring video, testified today and explained he was not familiar with the vehicle as it was a new vehicle that had just been brought up from the lower mainland.
When asked if he had tested the intercom system that would allow him to communicate with the inmates he said he had not been trained on the system and didn’t understand it was there for that usage.
“We have never had a vehicle prior to this one that used that technology we used our cameras that’s what was done.”
Brown said he was monitoring the video system every 15 to 20 minutes but did not see anything out of the ordinary on the journey until he saw one of the prisoners make a strange hand gesture.
It was at that time they happened upon the RCMP officer and pulled over for assistance and called their deputy warden Jeff Maduke.
The jury also heard testimony from Maduke, who explained at that time there was no policy for training on new vehicles it was “more about framilarization.”
Inquest counsel John Orr also asked Maduke about policy around opening the doors to physically check on the prisoners.
The corrections officers indicated in their testimony that it wasn’t policy to open the doors unless the vehicle was in a secure facility or they had permission.
“It would be a discussion of why they wanted to open the door and it could be over road or it could be granted,” explained Maduke.
Counsel for corrections Rolf Warburton also asked Maduke to speak about the presence of drugs in correctional facilities for the benefit of the jury who may be unframiliar.
“There is a fair bit of an institutional drug trade we call it,” said Maduke, adding it’s an ongoing struggle.
“When you have a psychology of addictions that a lot of our individuals who are incarcerated have that is their main goal to feed that addiction. They will go through many ways to get it into the centre and as we stop one way they will smartly and sadly figure out another way to bring it in.”
Steve DiCastri, warden for provincial initiatives, was the last person to testify at the inquiry. He explained some of the policy changes that have already taken place since this incident occurred in 2018.
He said corrections completed a critical incident review shortly after the incident which spurred a number of recommendations and actions taken.
One of the actions taken to address drugs prevalence was the addition of body scanners throughout the province.
“Into early 2019 Prince George received their body scanners and now the policy has changed to not a pat frisk but […] a strip search it’s called and a body scan.”
He also explained that correctional officers who perform transport duties are now required to be trained on the vehicles and their technology prior to departure.
“Prince George Regional Corrections Centre now has a training in place to train the officers and policy is very clear they are not to go on a transfer unless they’ve had training on that vehicle.”
Orr also asked DiCastri whether or not it would be reasonable for the jury to recommend z-class vehicles stop to physically check on the prisoners every 45 minutes.
DiCastri answered stopping to physically check on the prisoners in a secure location would be a better option.
“I think the comment about stopping at an RCMP station to stretch their legs and do a wellness check would be what comes to mind for me,” said DiCastri, when asked what he thought a reasonable recommendation from the jury might be.
DiCastri said and corrections counsel recently experiences a ride in the back of a z-class vehicle for the first time and he was taken aback.
“It’s uncomfortable. It’s cramped. It’s noisy. It smells and then put another person in there with you - It’s not acceptable.”
When asked by Orr if he thought a few stops along the way would be “the human thing to do” DiCastri answered yes.
Since various testimony indicated it was extremely difficult to hear in the vehicles, presiding coroner Blenkinsop also asked what DiCastri was able to hear when he was riding in the van.
“It was a very noisy experience in the van,” said DiCastri. “At highway speeds going up the highway for about 20 minutes, it was very difficult for me to hear banging in the back. But at idle speed, I could yell and hear muffled sounds.”
The jury will now return to conduct deliberations and decide on any recommendations.
By law the jury cannot make any findings that imply legal responsibility but can make recommendations that address gaps in services to help prevent future deaths.
