Law360 Canada ( July 22, 2021, 5:44 AM EDT) -- Appeal by two police officers from conviction for criminal negligence causing death. The appellants were the Booking Officers on duty when Rogers came into police custody for intoxication. Rogers had been a frequent detainee at the facility for public intoxication and other offences. Rogers was brought in with a spit hood that was not removed when he was placed in his cell. None of the officers were trained in the use or danger associated with leaving a spit hood on a prisoner. There was also no policy on their use. When Rogers vomited, the spit hood caused him to suffocate on his vomit. While the appellants checked the cells, they did not do so to the level set by policy. The Crown argued that because of Rogers’ intoxication, the appellants failed in their duty when they admitted him into the facility without a medical examination, left a spit hood on him, and failed to conduct mandated checks on his well-being. The trial judge never instructed the jury on the issue of the standard of care a reasonable Booking Officer owed or how to determine if the identified omissions by the appellants not only amounted to a failure to meet that standard of care but amounted to a marked and substantial departure from it. At no time did the trial judge instruct the jury to consider the appellants’ respective perceptions, were they reasonably held, and, whether a reasonable Booking Officer would have appreciated the risks associated with the acts or omissions said to have caused Rogers’ death. The trial judge never referred to the evidence that could inform the jury about the standard of care of a reasonable Booking Officer and the appropriate role for the policies relied upon by the Crown. ...