Temple arson investigation

[projekktor id=’24268′]

Ian Matthews shot and killed himself more than 2 years ago, and now new reports revealed the 25 year veteran of the force took his life a day after he was told he was being investigated under the Police Act. The case is raising questions over how police investigate their own when faced with sexual assault allegations.

Ian Matthews was a well loved officer and a long time veteran of the Hamilton Police force.

New reports reveal Matthews was at the centre of a police investigation that alleged he was having a sexual relationship with an important tipster in the Samaj Temple arson case just a day before he took his life.

The woman, whose identity is protected by a court order, approached Matthews in 2013 to help identify the three temple arsonists.

The relationship allegedly involved drugs, alcohol and money according to an investigation by the Ontario Independent Police Review director.

Then Police Chief Glenn De Caire never reported the case to the Special Investigations Unit, which oversees cases that involve police officers.

In a written statement Hamilton Police officials say “the service is in full support of governance, civilian oversight and accountability and takes allegations against its officers seriously.”

The matter was originally turned over to the Niagara Regional Police Service for investigation which determined it was not a criminal matter.

The woman later filed a complaint with the Ontario Independent Police Review director, which cleared Glenn De Caire.

“After several months of an investigation by his department they did report back to the board that there was no wrong doing.” said Llyod Ferguson, Hamilton Police Services Board.

The troubling revelations also bring into question whether the Samaj arson case was compromised.

Christopher Pollard, Damien Marsh and Scott Ryan all had their arson charges withdrawn in 2014 and accepted deals to plead guilty to mischief.

Hamilton Police and The Crown both knew of the allegations against Matthews, but it was never shared with the defense according to defence lawyer Peter Boushy.

“Anything that’s parts of the fruits of the investigation, of the police investigation, that is in The Crown possession and is relevant to the case, needs to be disclosed to the defence.”

Boushy represented Christopher Pollard during the trial.

He says while the information wouldn’t have changed the case it is concerning the information was not shared.