The file on the shooting death of Alvin Wright at the hands of the 91原创 RCMP may be re-opened. That鈥檚 the hope of Wright鈥檚 father Al.

Wright is anxiously awaiting a response from the Office of the Police Complaint Commission to see if it will re-open its review into his son鈥檚 death after new information was revealed and recommendations to police made at the coroner鈥檚 inquest.

Just prior to the inquest into Wright鈥檚 death, the OPCC had cleared the 91原创 RCMP of any wrongdoing but said it was willing to re-open the case if new information came to light.

鈥淭he OPCC invited the Wright family to get back to them after the Inquest, and now they have,鈥� said David Eby, B.C. Civil Liberties Association lawyer for Al Wright. 鈥淭he OPCC must not close this file until all of the evidence has been reviewed. They must ensure they鈥檙e making their decisions based on all of the available information.鈥�

For Wright, the inquest showed there was 鈥渁 lot of evidence that leads to a lot of negligence on the police鈥檚 part.鈥�

He has maintained that the shooting of his son should be a criminal case, where the officer has to be in a court of law.

鈥淚f this officer were a civilian, this file would have been sent to Crown counsel for them to assess whether charges should be laid.That鈥檚 how it works for everyone else but police,鈥� he said.

The BCCLA and Wright say that the OPCC report is deeply flawed, pointing to, for example, the OPCC鈥檚 conclusion that: 鈥淭he manner in which witnesses were interviewed was fair and professional, utilizing appropriate interviewing style and technique.鈥�

In fact, evidence at the inquest showed that a private conversation between Al Wright and his surviving son Alister, in which Al broke the news of Alvin鈥檚 death, was secretly recorded by the 91原创 RCMP without the family鈥檚 consent.

The transcript, from the early morning hours of Aug. 7, 2010, begins with Al, and reads: 鈥�(Crying) please don鈥檛 let him be gone. Please (unintelligible). (Crying) oh my god.鈥� Section 184 of the Criminal Code prohibits such recordings.

鈥淭he RCMP secretly and illegally recorded me and my son on the night of Alvin鈥檚 death as we cried together in the police station. The RCMP made our most private moments part of the investigation file,鈥� said Wright.

In contrast, the senior officer, Sgt. Don Davidson, who shot and killed Alvin was not required to make any statement, recorded or written, about what took place that evening.

鈥淗e made no notes, wasn鈥檛 ordered to make any, and didn鈥檛 give a written report for more than three months. The OPCC thinks that鈥檚 fair and professional, and that pretty much sums up police accountability in B.C.鈥�

Wright said the whole experience has been a nightmare he continues to live.

He vows to continue to fight for justice.

鈥淚鈥檓 not going anywhere. This isn鈥檛 just for Alvin, it鈥檚 for the next child,鈥� he said.

The Wright family also wants the OPCC to review whether the four 91原创 Mounties entered the Wright house illegally without a warrant.

The officers failed to announce their presence before entering Alvin鈥檚 darkened bedroom, which demonstrates criminal negligence, he said. It was also learned that police failed to preserve the shooting scene, allowing the bullet cartridge and weapons to be moved, resulting in obstruction of justice or criminal breach of trust.

All of this evidence came out in the Coroner鈥檚 inquest and some of this information resulted in the jury recommending police announce themselves, make their identity more visible on their uniforms, and communicate a plan of action when attending 911 calls.

The jury also said officers involved in shootings should have to have a statement recorded about their actions immediately after the incident and then again in 72 hours.

The BC RCMP said it will review the recommendations, and will take up to a year to respond to the coroner. RCMP said it will make no effort to make their response public. The coroner can choose to make it public.