The case is officially closed, but the accusations of sexual assault made against two Watson Lake RCMP officers continue to dog the Mounties and the Minister of Justice.

The issue, which was settled in court on March 16 with a not-guilty verdict, is clearly not settled for some members of the legislature, as it was raised there Monday by the NDP's Steve Cardiff.

"Acceptable behaviour and the ethics of RCMP officers in our smaller communities are of paramount importance,” Cardiff told the house.

"Acceptable behaviour means awareness of the major role played by alcohol in our high sexual assault rate and to refrain from its abuse ....

"What has the Minister of Justice done to communicate to the RCMP her government's discomfort with the actions of the officers who were acquitted in the sexual assault case?”

He was referring to the fact, revealed during the trial of Constables Graham Belak and Shawn McLaughlin, that the two officers had sex with a Watson Lake nurse after a night of heavy drinking.

The woman charged the officers with sexual assault after their March 2009 encounter and accused them of drugging her.

In deciding the case, Yukon Supreme Court Justice Leigh Gower said the woman was not a credible witness, and found the officers not guilty.

Justice Minister Marian Horne said she would not discuss the case specifically because it is still before the courts, which it is not, but went on to tell Cardiff: "We have a very good working concept with the RCMP and we discuss matters of violence against women at every one of our meetings.”

Cardiff challenged Horne, but she stuck by her incorrect assertion that the case is before the courts and refused to say if she has spoken to the RCMP about the officers' behaviour.

Shortly after Belak and McLaughlin were found not guilty, RCMP spokesman Sgt. Don Rogers told reporters the two men will face a disciplinary hearing, and could still lose their jobs.

A date still has not been set for the hearing, Rogers said today. He would not say if the minister has spoken to the Yukon's commanding officers about the case.

"It would be inappropriate for me to discuss what the minister has or hasn't said,” Rogers said. "... Should she choose to speak to it, that's her prerogative.”

The NDP has also sent Horne a letter on the matter, stating the case "has raised many serious questions about the definition of consent, the determination of credibility, and the re-victimization of complainants who have the courage to go to court.”

A spokesperson for the party acknowledged this morning that the minister of Justice has no power to direct judges in their deliberations on legal definitions or in how they decide if a witness is credible, and would be infringing on judicial independence if she did so.

The bulk of the letter, however, focuses on the same questions Cardiff posed in the legislature.

"Women need to feel safe when reporting sexual assault to the RCMP,” the letter states.

"When will you, as the Minister of Justice, be coming forward with solutions for repairing and restoring the trust that has been broken between Yukon citizens and their police force?”

This morning, the Star contacted Horne's office to clarify the fact that the case is no longer before the courts so Horne is free to speak about it, and to ask if she has had any communication with RCMP brass about this specific case.

She did not respond by press time this afternoon.

Responding to the renewed interest taken in the case by legislators, Rogers said the force did its job in investigating and laying charges against its officers, taking extra care in the circumstances.

"I think we demonstrated how seriously we took it when we had an external police force to come in and take over the investigation,” he said, referring to the fact the Edmonton City police were asked to take over the investigation from local officers.

He said he could not speak to how the trial has affected the organization and if it will result in any policy changes.

"That is something I can't speak to at this point while we wait to see if anything comes at the code of conduct (hearing) and the results of that.”

He also responded to charges, made by members of the public in letters to the editor, that the officers who came into the courtroom to watch the woman's testimony were there to intimidate her.

"There were designated members of the RCMP in plain clothes and they were there for specific purposes,” Rogers said

"Some of them were investigators with the major crimes unit who liaised with the investigator from the Edmonton force,” he said.

The division's staff sergeant major watched the entire proceedings so he would be informed for the code of conduct hearing, Rogers added.

As for any off-duty officers there to support their friends, or just to watch the case unfold, "they have the same rights and privileges as any other Canadian.

"The only person who can restrict them from the courtroom is the judge or the justice. We can't prevent them from going there,” he said.