# RCAF MP fined for sleeping on job while guarding PM's aircraft



## Sythen (25 Mar 2012)

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2012/03/20120324-182156.html

A quick search didn't show anyone else had posted this:



> TORONTO -- An RCAF master corporal has been fined $500 for falling asleep while guarding the aircraft of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other government members during a trip to Morocco.
> 
> Master Cpl. C.J.S. Agnew was found guilty by a standing court martial on March 5 at CFB North Bay, according to documents from his court martial.
> 
> Chief Military Judge Cmdr. Peter Lamont said Agnew pleaded guilty to a charge of neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline and can pay his fine in $100 installments.



One good thing I see is that Sun News does actually read comments, because shortly after posting mine they corrected the errors in the title and story.

On another note, only a $500 fine? When we were overseas, we were told that if we were caught sleeping at our post it was an automatic $3000 fine and you would be sent home immediately. I am not complaining that our potential punishment was too severe, but that his seems so light. Unless there are major mitigating factors, anyone else think he got off really easy?

_- mod edit to clarify it was a military policeman who was charged, convicted -_


----------



## aesop081 (25 Mar 2012)

Some of the comments are just as stupid as those on the CBC, with the exception that the people commenting on the Sun story, should know better ( based on the stuff in their comments, they know enough to be dangerous).

 :



> Agreed; but they are "Protected". This gets back to privacy vs. confidentiality... and we do have privacy laws in Canada. In fact, another crime may have been commited by the media... but I doubt anyone is going to investigate. Regardless, there remains one key issue - a serviceman, who clearly made a mistake and committed a chargable offence, was rightfully punished, is going to suffer beyond the scope of that punishment due to inappropriate media coverage.



CM results are public. As they should be. The rest of this guy's posts are crap too. Another barrack room lawyer who "retired" after 3 years i'm sure.



> So those of the military that hated the ole CO's parade, and fought for this new system? What do you think now! This should have been a 129 conduct unbecoming, by a Maj. same fine and not in the public eye. Oh yeah, did you all forget, now this is considered a criminal code conviction! Another way of forcing member to stay in the military!



"129" is not "conduct unbecoming"............Too many american movies for this person. No, it is not a criminal code violation. Thats something under 130.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Mar 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2012/03/20120324-182156.html
> 
> A quick search didn't show anyone else had posted this:
> 
> ...



Several things:  Where were you overseas?  What was the "Threat Level" there?  Did you witness anyone being charged $3000 or was that just a 'threat' to 'throw the fear of Jesus into you'?  You do realize that a charge like this is set on a formula that works off your IPC level?......A Pte would not be charged the same as a Col for the same offence.....ie. (extreme and outrageous example) 100% of their pay compared to 2% of their pay.


----------



## Sythen (25 Mar 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Several things:  Where were you overseas?  What was the "Threat Level" there?  Did you witness anyone being charged $3000 or was that just a 'threat' to 'throw the fear of Jesus into you'?  You do realize that a charge like this is set on a formula that works off your IPC level?......A Pte would not be charged the same as a Col for the same offence.....ie. (extreme and outrageous example) 100% of their pay compared to 2% of their pay.



I was in Afghanistan, and I don't know the exact threat level but considering we were at a COP with firefights at least 3-5 times a week I would say it was pretty high. Regardless of whether the threat level where he was (Morocco) is high or not, there should be one punishment for a crime. Whether you are on a guard tower in a FOB, a turret shift in a LAV, or standing suicide watch on someone in cells in Petawawa, sleeping during your duties is sleeping during your duties.

You're totally right, it could have been just an empty threat because I never had first hand knowledge of anyone receiving that charge. I also never heard of anyone sleeping at their post. If the actual punishment is $500 and what we were told was an empty threat, I believe it is vastly inadequate.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (25 Mar 2012)

Sythen,

With respect, there cannot be one fine for each type of offense and maintain fairness in the system.  Each presiding officer and court martial judge must consider each situation on its own merits and assign a punishment that is best to serve justice.


----------



## dangerboy (25 Mar 2012)

To add to what SeaKingTaco said, here is what the Military Justice manual for summary trials says on fines:



> Fine. Both superior commanders and COs may impose a fine up to 60% of the offender’s
> monthly basic pay.49 Delegated officers may impose a fine up to 25% of monthly basic pay.50 A
> fine must be imposed in a stated amount expressed in dollars.



So depending on rank, spec pay and other factors it changes from pers to pers.  I am aware that court martials have different scales of punishment. I am at home so don't that that reference handy, I just used this as an example.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Mar 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> CM results are public. As they should be. The rest of this guy's posts are crap too. Another barrack room lawyer who "retired" after 3 years i'm sure.


And once that is pointed out, he takes another tack....


> I completely understand your observation; I'm questioning if it should be public however... this should, at a minimum, be PROTECTED B... which means not in public circulation. This may actually be a Federal Privacy Policy violation. If it were a criminal trial, I would see it differently; that is an offence against society - so it should be public. Service offences are different... and I think they should remain protected. A good question for the JAG and the Canadian Privacy Commissioner. I'm going to bring it up with the head of the Canadian Privacy association.


Funny that.....

For anyone interested in more details from official sources ....
Charge sheet
Result/sentence
Statement on sentencing

_Edited to correct sentencing statement link - thanks to all who helped!_


----------



## aesop081 (25 Mar 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Statement on sentencing



The site unfortunately links the wrong file. It likes to the file for the case right above it in the 2012 decisions page.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Mar 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> milnews.ca said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Dohhhh!  Didn't download it - milpoints inbound for that check.  Appreciated.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (25 Mar 2012)

Correct link to results......

http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/dec/2012/doc/2012cm2003-eng.pdf


----------



## Sythen (25 Mar 2012)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Sythen,
> 
> With respect, there cannot be one fine for each type of offense and maintain fairness in the system.  Each presiding officer and court martial judge must consider each situation on its own merits and assign a punishment that is best to serve justice.



I fully understand that there can be mitigating circumstances (I won't claim to know anything about this particular instance aside from what is written in this article) which can affect the specific amount given, but there should be a baseline. In dangerboy's post, the rule says the amount must be stated in dollars. Is this really the best policy? I am not the most enlightened person in the world, so maybe someone can show a line of thought that I am missing, but if for instance (and I am 100% pulling numbers out of thin air here) if you are caught sleeping while on guard duty the standard charge would be 25% of your monthly pay. That would be if there was no mitigating circumstances, but if during the trial its learned that the individual was very sick, maybe going through some personal issues, etc then the judge could use some common sense and amend it. By the same token, if this individual was a repeat offender and this was the third time caught in a similar situation, the judge could increase it.

As I said, I just think that $500 for this offense (again with the caveat that I do not know the specifics of the trial and there very well may be factors I don't know) is far too little.


----------



## garb811 (25 Mar 2012)

Read the results at the link NFLD Sapper posted.  It gives an excellent summary as to how punishments are determined generally and how the sentence was arrived at specifically in this case.


----------



## medicineman (25 Mar 2012)

On a lighter note, do you think this guy will ever get to go on another PMO jaunt?

MM


----------



## GAP (25 Mar 2012)

> circumstances of the offender; he enrolled in the Canadian
> Forces in 1985 and has served continuously since that time, rising to his present rank
> and position of master corporal.





> On a lighter note, do you think this guy will ever get to go on another PMO jaunt?



er....don't think so.... ;D


----------



## garb811 (25 Mar 2012)

Official answer:  He's done the crime, paid the fine and has a specialist qual that is in high demand.  Just like anyone else convicted of a service offence, life goes on.

Unofficial answer:  Closest he's going to get to that aircraft is when he's driving across the ramp in Trenton doing gate checks.


----------



## medicineman (25 Mar 2012)

garb811 said:
			
		

> Unofficial answer:  Closest he's going to get to that aircraft is when he's driving across the ramp in Trenton doing gate checks.



...if he's lucky,  :nod:

MM


----------



## Pusser (25 Mar 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> CM results are public. As they should be. The rest of this guy's posts are crap too. Another barrack room lawyer who "retired" after 3 years i'm sure.
> 
> "129" is not "conduct unbecoming"............Too many american movies for this person. No, it is not a criminal code violation. Thats something under 130.



Heartily agree on CM results being public.  In fact the CMs themselves are a public event (anybody can attend), as well they should be.  The right to a public trial is fundamental and actually stems from the Magna Carta.  Public trials are in the defendant's favour and are designed to prevent "Star Chamber" (in)justice.

Unless this loophole has been closed since I last dealt with it, even a conviction under Section 130 does not result in a criminal record.  It simply means that the offender has been found guilty under the *NDA* (not part of the Criminal Code) of something that is considered an offence under the Criminal Code.  In other words, he/she has been found guilty under the part of the NDA that says everything in the Criminal Code is a service offence as well (saves on the printing costs of having to repeat everything in the CC into the NDA).  I ran into this with a subordinate once who had previously been found guilty under Section 130 and was now seeking a pardon.  The report back from the RCMP said he didn't need a pardon, because he had no Criminal Record.  In other words, no Criminal Code conviction because he'd been charged and found guilty under the NDA vice the CC.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Mar 2012)

Now having said that, and speaking from personal experience, any conviction under the NDA means you can't get a pardon for any criminal charges you may have been convicted of for a period of 5 years from the NDA conviction.
In my case I would have been better to have punched someone out downtown that to have been late for work......


----------



## blacktriangle (25 Mar 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Now having said that, and speaking from personal experience, any conviction under the NDA means you can't get a pardon for any criminal charges you may have been convicted of for a period of 5 years from the NDA conviction.
> In my case I would have been better to have punched someone out downtown that to have been late for work......



You mean you couldn't do both? I thought that's what they called a "hybrid offence"! I knew I should have studied more in school!


----------



## armyvern (25 Mar 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> ...
> CM results are public. As they should be. The rest of this guy's posts are crap too. Another barrack room lawyer who "retired" after 3 years i'm sure.
> 
> "129" is not "conduct unbecoming"............Too many american movies for this person. No, it is not a criminal code violation. Thats something under 130.



Bang on.

And, as to the newspaper comment regarding, "it should have been a 129 and a COs parade" (I'm guessing he means lad should have been charged with 129 and had a Summary Trial vice a CM), Court Martial can and do happen for "mere 129s" - why do people think they can't be CM'd on 129s??  .


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Mar 2012)

If this happened in the US military[and it does] he would receive Non Judicial Punishment loss of some pay and a stripe for this type of offense.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (25 Mar 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Bang on.
> 
> And, as to the newspaper comment regarding, "it should have been a 129 and a COs parade" (I'm guessing he means lad should have been charged with 129 and had a Summary Trial vice a CM), Court Martial can and do happen for "mere 129s" - why do people think they can't be CM'd on 129s??  .



I know I'm weighing in late on this one, he was charged with 129, being An ACT/CONDUCT or NEGLECT to the prejudice of good order and discipline, in this particular airman's case the later, and there are many circumstances that would make section 129 offence to be electable.  In fact because the offence does not relate to the maint of military kit, or training it is therefore electable. 

As for the Summary Trial vice CM this was likely the lads election and not forced by the Military Justice System, if it was forced it would likely have come with other offences such as section 124 with a max punishment of dismissal with disgrace. (it should also be noted that a CM may dismiss a member with disgrace in relation to an offence under section 129).

Be careful what you wish for, a CM has much higher powers of punishment.


----------



## garb811 (25 Mar 2012)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Unless this loophole has been closed since I last dealt with it, even a conviction under Section 130 does not result in a criminal record.  It simply means that the offender has been found guilty under the *NDA* (not part of the Criminal Code) of something that is considered an offence under the Criminal Code.  In other words, he/she has been found guilty under the part of the NDA that says everything in the Criminal Code is a service offence as well (saves on the printing costs of having to repeat everything in the CC into the NDA).  I ran into this with a subordinate once who had previously been found guilty under Section 130 and was now seeking a pardon.  The report back from the RCMP said he didn't need a pardon, because he had no Criminal Record.  In other words, no Criminal Code conviction because he'd been charged and found guilty under the NDA vice the CC.



It was closed, see Division 6.2 of the _National Defence Act_.


----------



## Tank Troll (25 Mar 2012)

Ummmm correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure some one will) but don't MPs guard the PMs jet?


----------



## fraserdw (25 Mar 2012)

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> Ummmm correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure some one will) but don't MPs guard the PMs jet?



Yup!


----------



## Tank Troll (25 Mar 2012)

fraserdw said:
			
		

> Yup!



So why doesn't it say Military Policeman fell asleep guarding PM's jet


----------



## aesop081 (25 Mar 2012)

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> So why doesn't it say Military Policeman fell asleep guarding PM's jet



You expect the media to get all the details ?


----------



## krustyrl (25 Mar 2012)

....or USE all the details.??        :


----------



## Tank Troll (25 Mar 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You expect the media to get all the details ?




My bad  :facepalm:


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Mar 2012)

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> So why doesn't it say Military Policeman fell asleep guarding PM's jet



It doesn't matter because most civilians think this way:

Army - Tankers or Foot Soldiers;
Air Force - Pilots or guys that look at radar screens; and
Navy - Depending on which movie they watched they are thought of as battleship or aircraft carrier captains, naval aviators, or submarine captains.


----------



## dapaterson (26 Mar 2012)

The RCN and RCAF have made it clear that they are claiming ownership of anyone in their uniforms, regardless of their trade and regardless of where they are posted.

So it's accurate to call this offender an RCAF airman - Old Yeller is yours and you have to take responsibility for him.


----------



## Good2Golf (26 Mar 2012)

...or an "RCAF military policeman."



RCAF = organization witin th CF

Military policeman = job function


At the end of the day, the MCpl's duties were in the function of an aircraft security officer (ASO), responsible for ensuring that the security quarantine on the PM's aircraft is maintained prior to the PM boarding the aircraft.


Regards
G2G


----------



## Pieman (26 Mar 2012)

I recall a girl I worked with overseas got caught sleeping while monitoring a camera system....pretty boring job, but she was just fined and told she was a piece of junk etc. Most people take a summary trial over a court martial, unless they really think they did not do something wrong.

I wish they would publish the regimental summary trials. Would give a better picture of things happening.

What percentage of trials go to court martial? Very, very few from what I understand.


----------



## dapaterson (26 Mar 2012)

Pieman said:
			
		

> I wish they would publish the regimental summary trials. Would give a better picture of things happening.
> 
> What percentage of trials go to court martial? Very, very few from what I understand.



Annual reports on military justice are posted that provide that sort of detail.  A quick bit of Google-age (if that's a word) should help you find what you're interested in.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (26 Mar 2012)

Pieman,

What DAP just said.

And while explict details about summary trials are not available, the results of each and every court martial decision are published on the same website and they make excellent reading.


----------



## Pieman (26 Mar 2012)

Ah, okay thanks. I had looked but clearly not closely enough. 

Anyway, I always made sure to attend the summary trials in my regiment, was a great form of entertainment for me. Oh, another interesting one was a couple guys in my regiment decided he really wanted to go home. So he lied about his grandmother dying and got compassionate leave. I really thought he was going to the slammer for that one, but no.


----------



## Tank Troll (26 Mar 2012)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ...or an "RCAF military policeman."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 That is his DEU element not his organization, he is a Military Policeman. To say he is in the RCAF because he wears a blue uniform is to say Donald Duck is in the Navy because he wears a sailor suit. We had a couple of Armour Crewman that worked a stewards on the airbus they wore blue flight suits didn't make them RCAF Airmen. Same as guys attached to the Helicopter Sqns they collect flight pay and fly around on the birds but they are still not RCAF Airmen. I know just ranting, but I wish some one would vet these stories before they are published.


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Mar 2012)

What you say? Donald Duck is not RCN?

You have shattered my world


----------



## GAP (27 Mar 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> What you say? Donald Duck is not RCN?
> 
> You have shattered my world




shhhh....he's an underwater operative Jim......keep it under your.....er.....hat?


----------



## dapaterson (27 Mar 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> What you say? Donald Duck is not RCN?
> 
> You have shattered my world



Well, Donald Duck doesn't wear pants - that makes him more of a highlander than a sailor.


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Mar 2012)

Oh OK our secret shhhhh


Sheep should be scared..right?

Thanks...needed that laugh!


----------



## Pusser (27 Mar 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Well, Donald Duck doesn't wear pants - that makes him more of a highlander than a sailor.



There is no requirement to wear pants in order to be a sailor.  More than one pair of pants have left on shore leave that have never returned.

However, more to the point, Donald Duck is not RCN - he's USN...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (27 Mar 2012)

You know, I am beginning to understand why a long time ago, all the ongoing discussions between theologians used to end up discussing how many angels fit on the head of a needle.


----------



## GAP (27 Mar 2012)

Pusser said:
			
		

> There is no requirement to wear pants in order to be a sailor.  More than one pair of pants have left on shore leave that have never returned.
> 
> However, more to the point, Donald Duck is not RCN - he's USN...



Oh....you went over to the dark side?  and for.... er........cookies?


----------

