Medicine Hat Police Officer Charged with Obstructing Justice Amid Former Chief’s Lawsuit
Officer Noel Darr
Cops put their last name backwards on social media. Leon Radd was not hard to find.
A Medicine Hat Police Service (MHPS) officer has been charged with obstructing justice, a development that intersects with a multi-million-dollar lawsuit filed by the force’s former police chief—though the exact connection between the two cases remains unclear.
Const. Noel Darr, a central figure in the ongoing legal turmoil surrounding the MHPS, was arrested on July 7, 2025, following an Edmonton Police Service (EPS) Professional Standards Branch investigation. The probe, launched in February 2023 at the MHPS’s request, stemmed from complaints made by a former employee. The alleged obstruction occurred during the course of that investigation.
Darr was released on an appearance notice and is scheduled to appear in court on August 27, 2025. The MHPS confirmed Darr is currently away from work for unrelated reasons but said his duty status will be reassessed once EPS provides its full findings. The Owl’s research showed that Darr was likely off work due to a recent death in his family.
The Shadow of Former Chief Mike Worden’s Lawsuit
Former Chief of MHPS - Mike Worden
He’s suing - just about everyone.
The charge against Darr comes as former MHPS Chief Mike Worden pursues a $1.85 million lawsuit against the City of Medicine Hat, Darr, and several other officers, alleging a coordinated effort to force his resignation in May 2022.
Worden’s statement of claim accuses Darr and others of conspiring to damage his reputation, including by leaking private messages between Worden and another individual—later revealed in court documents to be civilian employee Sashia Steier. Worden claims these actions amounted to blackmail and led to his resignation after an internal investigation into alleged harassment, which he insists was baseless and politically motivated.
A third-party investigation later cleared Worden of harassment, but his lawsuit alleges the damage was already done. The City of Medicine Hat has yet to release any statement about the case; although “Legal Matters” has come up in closed council sessions several times over the past few months.
Unanswered Questions: How Does Darr’s Charge Fit?
While Darr’s obstruction charge appears linked to the same broader misconduct investigation that ensnared Worden, EPS has not clarified how—or if—the charge directly relates to the former chief’s lawsuit. The timing raises questions about whether Darr’s alleged interference involved Worden’s case, but no official connection has been made.
Key unknowns:
Did Darr’s alleged obstruction involve evidence tied to Worden’s lawsuit?
Was the “former employee” who complained to EPS connected to Worden’s case?
Could this charge strengthen Worden’s civil claims?
Institutional Fallout
The charge against Darr further destabilizes public trust in the MHPS, which has faced scrutiny over its handling of internal misconduct. Worden’s lawsuit alleges systemic failures in oversight, while Darr’s arrest suggests potential misconduct within the ranks.
The MHPS, in a brief statement, emphasized its commitment to accountability but cautioned against drawing conclusions before court proceedings conclude.
What’s Next?
August 27, 2025: Darr’s first court appearance.
Pending: EPS’s full investigative report, which will determine Darr’s employment status.
Ongoing: Worden’s lawsuit, which could face delays as parallel cases unfold.
For now, the precise relationship between Darr’s charge and Worden’s lawsuit remains a mystery—one that could unravel further in the coming months.
A police officer charged with obstructing justice in Alberta could face a range of penalties, including fines, imprisonment, or both, depending on the severity and nature of the offense. Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Understanding Obstruction of Justice:
Section 139 of the Criminal Code: This section defines the offense of obstructing justice.
Hybrid Offence: Obstruction of justice is a "hybrid" offense, meaning the Crown (prosecutor) can choose to proceed either by indictment (more serious) or by summary conviction (less serious).
Maximum Penalties:
Indictment: Up to 10 years imprisonment.
Summary Conviction: Up to 2 years less a day imprisonment and/or a $5,000 fine.
Factors Influencing Sentencing:
Severity of the Obstruction:
Actions like bribing witnesses, preventing them from testifying, or fabricating evidence will likely result in harsher penalties.
Role of the Officer:
The officer's position and responsibilities within the police force will be considered.
Impact on the Case:
If the obstruction significantly affected the outcome of a legal proceeding, this will be a factor.
Prior Criminal Record:
Any previous criminal convictions, especially related to obstructing justice or abuse of power, can lead to a more severe sentence.
Sentencing Principles:
The judge will consider various sentencing principles like deterrence, rehabilitation, and denunciation of the offense.
Possible Dispositions (Outcomes):
Discharge (Section 730): A discharge may be granted in cases where the offense is not serious and the offender has a minimal criminal record.
Suspended Sentence (Section 731(1)(a)): The sentence is put on hold, and the offender is placed on probation.
Fine (Section 731(1)(b)): A monetary penalty is imposed.
Custody (Sections 718.3, 787): Imprisonment, with or without probation or a fine.
Conditional Sentence (Section 742.1): Imprisonment served in the community, under specific conditions.
Example Scenario:
If a police officer deliberately deletes a crucial piece of evidence from a crime scene in an attempt to protect a fellow officer, this could be considered a serious act of obstruction of justice. Depending on the circumstances, the officer could face a lengthy prison sentence if the case is prosecuted by indictment, or a shorter jail term and a fine if it's a summary conviction.
