The shooting death of Donny Dunphy by an RNC Officer of the
Protective Services Unit (PSU) is a tragedy. In the circumstance, it demands
nothing less than the thoroughness and independence afforded by a Judicial

The late insertion by the RCMP of long retired Judge David Riche as an “independent observer”, an apparently new species of “oversight”, is no
replacement for a full Judicial Inquiry – especially when it is inappropriate for
the RCMP to be conducting the investigation in the first place. 

The process speaks to damage control both for the RNC and
for the Government. The RCMP is a non-arms-length Agency in this case. 

An apparently defective chain of decision-making placed the PSU
Officer in Mr. Dunphy’s home. The very first decision in the matter originated
in the Premier’s Office. There have been inappropriate statements by the

All this has added a distressing political dimension to the
case; one that begs for complete transparency.

Photo Credit: CBC
The Dunphy family lawyer, Erin Breen, has indicated they are
chiefly interested in what went on inside the home following the visit of the
RNC Officer. 

While the family’s concerns are important, the case raises issues
which call into question the command and control process inside and over the PSU
and its relationship to political staff, politicians and the Government.

Hence, very serious issues of justice and public policy, in
relation to the rights of citizens not to be subject to unreasonable police
tactics, must also be examined.

Many people have noted the possibly annoying, though not on
their face threatening “tweets”, by Mr. Dunphy.  They have keyed in on why a lone RNC/PSU
Officer, operating outside his area of jurisdiction, fired a weapon killing Mr.

There are many such questions. That is why nothing should
impede a thorough and objective investigation. It is also why we should be wary
of anyone who threatens to colour the issues around which the tragedy revolves
or takes any action to shield those connected to it.

For example, how does a series of Twitter messages by a frequent
member of the ‘twitteratti’, read by a staff Member in the Premier’s Office,
get rewarded with a visit from the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary?   

Did a Senior Officer send the PSU Officer to
intrude upon a private person’s life on the basis of his latest series of tweets
or did that PSU Officer make the decision to go to Mr. Dunphy’s house on his own?

Who ordered the PSU Officer to get in his car and go to
Donny Dunphy’s house?

And, if the PSU Officer was sent by a senior officer, was
that decision cleared by Fort Townsend before leaving for Mitchells Brook?

Should Twitter users now become concerned that their 140
characters, expressing dissatisfaction with the Government, may earn them a PSU
tap on the front door?

Just what is needed to deserve that knock?

Who sets the secret “threat” criteria that guides such

Who exactly, and under what supervision, goes through electronic
databases to check the citizen out? 

Is this done on the 8th floor?

And, given that the Premier says how the world has changed
so much, is all this evidence of a new paradigm on the eighth floor?

Is it still at work despite the public clamour that
greeted the Premier’s move, right after his Swearing-In Ceremony, to replace
“justice” with its ‘jack-boot’ cousin: the Department of Public Safety?

Has it taken the tragic shooting of Mr. Dunphy to crystalize
the image and operations of the PSU?

How big is the PSU in members and budget? Is it growing?

What exactly does it do?

Who oversees its day to day risk assessment and surveillance
and “citizens’ visitation” operations?

The Protective Services Unit (PSU) cannot be allowed to
float nebulously in a justice system in which the police and the politicians
have become far too close.

All these questions further support the need for an
immediate Judicial Inquiry.

And it must be a full and Independent Judicial Inquiry.

The RCMP is disqualified.

It was the Premier himself, who, in his initial statements,
acknowledged that both the RCMP and RNC are jointly involved in the Protective Services
Unit. For that reason, it ought to have been clear to him and to the Chief of the
RNC, that the RCMP is an unsuitable investigator in the Dunphy case. 

Why would the Government or the Chief of Police risk having
the key question of the investigation’s integrity remain at issue when the
Report is submitted?

The Chief should also be mindful, whether he acknowledges
the fact or not, that politics has already played a role in this investigation.  

At issue is not only how a Twitter feed is
handled by the Premier’s staff and what instructions accompanied the hand-off
to the PSU/RNC.  The Premier, unwittingly
or otherwise, has compounded one trail of poor decision-making with another, this
one of his own making. 

Understandably, he was expected to comment on the incident
given that a member of his security detail was the one involved in the shooting.
 But an expression of condolence and a
comment that he would await the report of the investigation, was all that was
necessary. Exhibiting terrible judgement, the Premier felt compelled to say far

CBC’s David Cochrane asked the Premier: “Did you view what Mr.
Dunphy put on Twitter as any kind of threat?” This is the Premier’s response:

“When people put their
hand up to enter politics and to do these types of roles you know that
sometimes your life and your families lives becomes an open book in so many
ways…quite often we become used to people’s challenges on policies and the
decisions we make and how we govern….it’s upsetting when you see a comment made
like that….(when) it appears to be directed towards me and another Cabinet Minister
and the people who are most important to us – our families. I’ve got an 83 year
old mother, a wife and child…this impacts them as well. They never put their
hand up…I put my hand up…that causes some concern.”

The Premier’s words were inappropriate.  They may even be
seen as prejudicial to the investigation. The manner in which his comments are framed
imply Mr. Dunphy had made a threat. He has provided justification for
the Police Officer’s visit to Mr. Dunphy and cover for the confrontation that

Those comments are all the more egregious because public
disclosures to date, do not suggest Mr. Dunphy was a violent person. There is
no ‘pattern of behaviour’ that suggests his private narrative, his health and
financial circumstance, should be undermined.

But, even this display of poor judgement by the Premier did
not stop there.
Davis acknowledged that he had called the Police Officer who
did the shooting.  “I called him to offer
my support”, said the Premier. 

Davis either does not understand, or if he does he ignores
the fact, being Premier does not afford him the flexibility he enjoyed in his
former employ.  He ought to know his
actions are widely interpreted especially for their perception of fairness. His
call to the Officer was one more in a sad comedy of errors.

Even his reference to and characterization of the age of
social media media implies Mr. Dunphy is at fault. The Premier states:

“We’re in a very different
time today than we were 2 years ago, 5 years ago, 10 years ago through social
media, web sites and so on. People often make very harsh and difficult
comments…one time it would be a letter or a phone call…”

Again, although it is apparent to all observers that Mr.
Dunphy did not make a threat, the Premier already has the investigation wound
up.  He seems not to understand that ubiquitous
social media constitutes only a change in the proliferation and the immediacy
of content transmission. The importance of ‘judgement’ in what is said, including and especially by those in authority, is as important as it was a hundred
years ago. 

The Premier truly exhibits an unfortunate level of indiscretion
in this tragic affair.

As much as the RCMP is a respected policing institution, it has
no place in this investigation. 

Only an authority external to both police forces, a Judicial
Inquiry with unfettered power and authority to direct the investigation and
draw conclusions that are evidence based will put to rest questions that will
forever hang over this case.
Des Sullivan
Des Sullivan
St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada Uncle Gnarley is hosted by Des Sullivan, of St. John's. He is a businessman engaged over three decades in real estate management and development companies and in retail. He is currently a Director of Dorset Investments Limited and Donovan Holdings Limited. During his early career he served as Executive Assistant to Premier's Frank D. Moores (1975-1979) and Brian Peckford (1979-1985). He also served as a Part-Time Board Member on the Canada-Newfoundland Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NLOPB). Uncle Gnarley appears on the masthead representing serious and unambiguous positions on NL politics and public policy. Uncle Gnarley is a fiscal conservative possessing distinctly liberal values and a non-partisan persusasion. Those values and opinions underlie this writer's views on NL's politics, economy and society. Uncle Gnarley publishes Monday mornings and more often when events warrant.


Bill left public life shortly after the signing of the Atlantic Accord and became a member of the Court of Appeal until his retirement in 2003. During his time on the court he was involved in a number of successful appeals which overturned wrongful convictions, for which he was recognized by Innocence Canada. Bill had a special place in his heart for the underdog.

Churchill Falls Explainer (Coles Notes version)

If CFLCo is required to maximize its profit, then CFLCo should sell its electricity to the highest bidder(s) on the most advantageous terms available.


This is the most important set of negotiations we have engaged in since the Atlantic Accord and Hibernia. Despite being a small jurisdiction we proved to be smart and nimble enough to negotiate good deals on both. They have stood the test of time and have resulted in billions of dollars in royalties and created an industry which represents over a quarter of our economy. Will we prove to be smart and nimble enough to do the same with the Upper Churchill?


  1. I would like to know who closed Don Dunphy's Twitter account. He had posted hundreds and even thousands of messages pointing to WHSCC, police and Government corruption and even through out a few names. Social Media bothers those who don't want their dirt thrown out to the public. If the family had the account closed then we should respect that, but the RCMP said and it's obvious that his account is part of the investigation. I just hope they don't put a spin on his Tweets like they did with the one they used to visit Don on that fateful day.

  2. In all honesty, threats should be investigated. You think Obama ignores death threats from twitter? You probably don't hear about it much because it probably happens a lot (most likely investigated as well) and his security detail gets beefed up. Also, you don't have to have a "violent" history to become a threat. How do you think all violators started out? It only takes one time.
    Lastly, why did he have a gun when the police came to see him.

    Maybe it was an honest mistake or maybe it was a true threat. They acted on instinct and facts.

    My two cents. You don't have to agree, just keep the ignorant replies to yourself fellow commenters.

  3. Obviously you do not understand common English my man.The man did not threaten anyone there-fore as far as I am concerned they had no right to ever go to his house.What is ignorant here is your lack of understanding of the letter that Des wrote,and the despicable change of command who authorized such a visit and the whole process that appears to be lacking in integrity and plain common sense that led to this horrible tragedy.The Premier should step down,he failed on every account,he's not impartial he's partial on the side of the R.N.C,what does this tell us,that he should not be Premier and that he was unable to act professionally and that he indeed took a side for all the public to see.He will never ever win an election,no one will ever forget the lack of integrity stated by the Govt.,and the actions that ensued,and yes! it should be an Independent Judicial Inquiry.What a night-mare for this family,a sinful tragedy,there are no words,just complete dismay!!!

  4. An utter lack of judgement and distain for due process appears to have been at work here. If Mr. Dunphy had indeed made a direct threat….and such a conclusion is questionable when one reads the tweets he sent out…..the response but the PSU itself is most disturbing. Sending a lone police officer, who was presumably ordered to visit the home of this individual, is simply asking for trouble. If it had been determined by some authority that Mr. Dunphy had used threats, one would think that a police investigation, properly initiated and conducted by the RCMP or RNC, should have been undertaken. To use a member of the PSU for that purpose is to circumvent a judicial process and certainly implies an appalling disregard for personal liberty and privacy.

    As Mr. Sullivan so aptly wrote, a full judicial inquiry is both warranted and essential from the sense of justice being seen to be done…..anything less is going to uncover questionable truths! How can we, in this so-called age of enlightenment, allow governments and public institutions to circumvent due process once again….but , in my opinion, this has occurred with increasing frequency in the past decade.

  5. I think that Des has captured to views of many in this artcile. While I think we all accept the need for intervention in order to protect certain public figures, we must also accept the fact that such intervention must be seen as necessary, using realistic guidelines and protocal.

    While it may seem trivial, I found it somewhat peculiar that given the facts of this matter, an RNC officer would go on such a venture outside their jurisdiction on an Easter Sunday when Mr. Dunphy could have either been out for day with family or friends or just simply enjoying a peaceful Easter Sunday alone. I also find the letter from the officer to all his coworkers peculiar given the high priority for hush, hush in this matter and how all on his or her own, they would have access to the entire distribution list for RNC and for someone in authority not to have known such a letter was going to be distributed or perhaps assisted with this effort. These factors do not add up for me.