# NDA reference



## sidemount (8 Nov 2015)

I've had a look through the site and some range standing orders but I can't seem to find the reference.

We've all heard the line "its an offence to remove ammo from a CAF range".....but what is the offence, I can't seem to find something suitable in the NDA either. Anyone have a specific reference?

(this is to settle an argument with someone else  ;D )

Thanks!


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Nov 2015)

If Range Standing Orders say "thou shalt not" that should be sufficient. The charge would then possibly be disobedience of a lawful command, or negligent performance of a military duty (failed to comply with an order, directive or instruction).


----------



## dapaterson (8 Nov 2015)

If you wished to pursue via the civilian court system, there's section 298:



> Unlawful disposal, removal or possession of property
> 
> 298. (1) Every person who
> (a) unlawfully disposes of or removes any property,
> ...


----------



## SupersonicMax (8 Nov 2015)

Can someone tell me where it says we have to:

1- Make a declaration after going to the range; and,

2- When making the declaration, call a Cpl "Sir".


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Nov 2015)

1. Should be covered in Range Standing Orders and/or your Range Instruction; and

2. You're actually making the declaration to the Officer Conducting the Exercise (OCE) or CO, not the Cpl. The Cpl is just the conduit, representative and witness.


----------



## sidemount (8 Nov 2015)

Thanks Mike, that seems appropriate.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (8 Nov 2015)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Can someone tell me where it says we have to:
> 
> 1- Make a declaration after going to the range; and,
> 
> 2- When making the declaration, call a Cpl "Sir".



1- without looking, I would say, BGL 381- Ranges and Trg Safety.
2- I don't know about you, but I say "Cpl". Never been corrected, yet...


----------



## SupersonicMax (8 Nov 2015)

The only time I had to do declarations is on small arms range.  Been to A/G ranges (in the air and on the ground) and I never had to do this...  

As far as calling a Cpl "Sir", I was told by said Cpl to call him Sir after calling him Cpl.  I didn't bring the issue up, because I have better things to spend my time on, but I find it awkward a Major or really anybody has to call a Cpl, Sir.  I get he "represents" whoever but he is not that person.  I represent the Wing Commander on occasion, but I don't ask people to call me Col.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (8 Nov 2015)

I don't do declarations on air ranges, either.

Never had my pockets checked for a torpedo.  

We also don't do it on a door gun range, but if we ran the same range on the ground, we would. So go figure...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Nov 2015)

B-GL-381-001-TS-000 
General Small Arms Handeling Rules For Conventional Ranges

At the conclusion of the exercise, all weapons and magazines, including spares, shall be unloaded and inspected. All participants of the exercise shall give a verbal declaration to the OIC Practice.

I don't do a declaration every time I set up an Ammo issue for a unit or blow an EOD. It is what it is.


----------



## FJAG (8 Nov 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> 1- without looking, I would say, BGL 381- Ranges and Trg Safety.
> 2- I don't know about you, but I say "Cpl". Never been corrected, yet...



You are correct re item 1. For example, para 21. of Chapter 3 Conventional Ranges states that "At the conclusion of the exercise, all weapons and magazines, including spares, shall be unloaded and inspected. All participants of the exercise shall give a verbal declaration to the OIC Practice." Similar provisions apply for other ranges.

Re item 2 the reason one says "Sir" is that the declaration goes to the OIC practice who is generally an officer. It may be a cpl or sgt going down the line on behalf of the OIC but if he is present at the time (as he should be) the proper declaration should end with "Sir"

There is no specific NDA reference but, in effect, a false declaration or other offence such as removing live ammunition could be charged under various provisions of the NDA as appropriate; for example s 114 Stealing, 115 Receiving, s 124 negligent performance of military duty, s 129 act or neglect to the prejudice of good order or discipline.

S 298 of the NDA is only of use in situations where the Code of Service Discipline was not applicable at the time of the offence. The CSD applies to regular force members at all times and on reservists when the situations at NDA s 60(1)(c) apply. Since declarations are given on ranges during exercises the reservist would most probably be subject to the CSD.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (8 Nov 2015)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> As far as calling a Cpl "Sir", I was told by said Cpl to call him Sir after calling him Cpl.  . . .



Why do you call the Cpl "Sir"?


----------



## SupersonicMax (8 Nov 2015)

FCAG,  are you suggesting that if I represent someone from a higher rank, it would be appropriate for me to ask them to address me by their title and rank?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Nov 2015)

If he's the OIC of the range, sure.


----------



## SupersonicMax (8 Nov 2015)

Funny thing is that at the time, I was the A/CO of the unit owning the range and conducting range training.  I guess I had to call one of my subordinates sir!

As a note, why is there an unwritten rule only applicable to range OICs?


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Nov 2015)

Is this so degrading to you it needs an entire thread?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Nov 2015)

Heaven forbid he should look down at the pions conducting a range.


----------



## SupersonicMax (8 Nov 2015)

I am not looking down at people running the range but rather at why do they get to call themselves something they are not.  If there is a rule somewhere (which is what I am asking), then so be it.  Otherwise, I do not think it is appropriate.  But they are not the only ones representing someone warranting a different title and yet, they are the only ones making people call them that title.

PuckChaser, I did not start the thread.  Just asking simple questions,  don't need to get upset.


----------



## dangerboy (8 Nov 2015)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Funny thing is that at the time, I was the A/CO of the unit owning the range and conducting range training.  I guess I had to call one of my subordinates sir!
> 
> As a note, why is there an unwritten rule only applicable to range OICs?



It is not only applicable to range OICs, it is a standard protocol when on parade.  You call out the rank of the highest person on parade if your name is called ( for NCMs it is usually just Sir/Ma'am). Unfortunately I  am on ex and don't have the drill manual to give you the reference.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Nov 2015)

It wouldn't matter if SSM wrote the pub himself. He'd still refute the literature. You could say the sky looks blue and he'd argue. One notch above troll


----------



## Tibbson (9 Nov 2015)

My take on the calling of the Cpl (in your example) "Sir" is that I am not calling him Sir.  The declaration should be given to the officer in charge of the range.  The Cpl standing in front of you is only the representative of the OIC to make sure each person gives the proper declaration.  Im not giving it to him, he's just there to make sure I give it to the officer.


----------



## SupersonicMax (9 Nov 2015)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> It wouldn't matter if SSM wrote the pub himself. He'd still refute the literature. You could say the sky looks blue and he'd argue. One notch above troll



I am happy to be proven wrong, but substantiate claims, especially when my initial query was exactly that (find a reference).


----------



## SeaKingTacco (9 Nov 2015)

Max,

The Cpl in your example is merely a witness. You are actually addressing the range oic.

If he happens to be of equal or lesser rank than you, feel free to use his first name. Or not. Nobody gives a shit.

Can we frickin move on?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (9 Nov 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Max,
> 
> The Cpl in your example is merely a witness. You are actually addressing the range oic.
> 
> ...



Not until you provide the reference!

NO WIKIPEDIA!  ;D


----------



## FJAG (9 Nov 2015)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> My take on the calling of the Cpl (in your example) "Sir" is that I am not calling him Sir.  The declaration should be given to the officer in charge of the range.  The Cpl standing in front of you is only the representative of the OIC to make sure each person gives the proper declaration.  Im not giving it to him, he's just there to make sure I give it to the officer.



Bingo! The declaration is being given to the OIC in that circumstance.

There are a lot of things we do in the military that do not have any specific order or directive or instructions. We call such things the "custom of the service". Some are recorded others just exist in memory and habit. 

 :cheers:


----------



## dimsum (9 Nov 2015)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Bingo! The declaration is being given to the OIC in that circumstance.
> *
> There are a lot of things we do in the military that do not have any specific order or directive or instructions. We call such things the "custom of the service". Some are recorded others just exist in memory and habit. *
> 
> :cheers:



For some reason this popped to mind when I read that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgIBG8q1Gjc


----------



## Pusser (9 Nov 2015)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Can someone tell me where it says we have to:
> 
> 1- Make a declaration after going to the range; and,
> 
> 2- When making the declaration, call a Cpl "Sir".



With respect to point #1, this is simply a means of getting somebody to certify in front of a witness that he/she is not doing something illegal (and stealing ammunition from the range would be illegal).  It's not that strange and there are other examples throughout the CF where we do similar things (e.g. claims generally include a written statement that the member is claiming a legitimate entitlement and that he/she has not been reimbursed already, etc.  When an oncoming Officer of the Watch on the bridge of one of HMC Ships states, "I have the Watch," he/she is making a declaration, in front of witnesses, that he/she now has responsibility of the safe conduct of the ship).

Point #2 is a load of bollocks, notwithstanding any so called "custom of the service" nonsense.  I do not address corporals as "Sir" regardless of whom they purport to represent.  I always use the appropriate form of address of the person to whom I am actually making the declaration and no one has ever called me on it.  What would they do if they did want to call me on it, charge me with insubordination?  That would make for an interesting court martial - "...insubordinate in that he refused to address his subordinate in the manner befitting that subordinate's superior, an unknown officer, who was not present at the time,...." 

Furthermore, not saying, "Sir" does not make the declaration any less binding.  Somehow, I don't think, "well I never properly declared to the OCE that I didn't have any live rounds or empty casings in my possession, because I didn't say Sir to the corporal," would be a winning defence strategy at a court martial.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Nov 2015)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Point #2 is a load of bollocks, notwithstanding any so called "custom of the service" nonsense.  I do not address corporals as "Sir" regardless of whom they purport to represent.  I always use the appropriate form of address of the person to whom I am actually making the declaration and no one has ever called me on it.  What would they do if they did want to call me on it, charge me with insubordination?  That would make for an interesting court martial - "...insubordinate in that he refused to address his subordinate in the manner befitting that subordinate's superior, an unknown officer, who was not present at the time,...."
> 
> Furthermore, not saying, "Sir" does not make the declaration any less binding.  Somehow, I don't think, "well I never properly declared to the OCE that I didn't have any live rounds or empty casings in my possession, because I didn't say Sir to the corporal," would be a winning defence strategy at a court martial.



 :facepalm:


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (9 Nov 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> :facepalm:



This thread is turning in to what would be a pretty good Blackadder skit


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (9 Nov 2015)

And if I ever catch you trying this, Baldrick, I'll have you shot... with the bullets I sneaked out from the range  ;D.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (9 Nov 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> And if I ever catch you trying this, Baldrick, I'll have you shot... with the bullets I sneaked out from the range  ;D.



 :rofl:


----------



## dapaterson (9 Nov 2015)

FJAG said:
			
		

> S 298 of the NDA is only of use in situations where the Code of Service Discipline was not applicable at the time of the offence. The CSD applies to regular force members at all times and on reservists when the situations at NDA s 60(1)(c) apply. Since declarations are given on ranges during exercises the reservist would most probably be subject to the CSD.



However, if a Reservist was found with military ammunition outside the times where s 60(1) apply, they could still be on the hook under s 298.  At $100 per offense, if possession of each round is an offense, a box of ammo just got quite expensive...


----------



## Tibbson (9 Nov 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> And if I ever catch you trying this, Baldrick, I'll have you shot... with the bullets I sneaked out from the range  ;D.



Yes Sir....er....Corporal....um.......


----------



## Mick (9 Nov 2015)

I'm finding this thread pretty interesting, as in the past I've wondered about who I'm actually addressing when making the declaration.

If the RSO or officer conducting the exercise is female, is the Cpl addressed as "Ma'am" regardless of the Cpl's gender?

If the RSO or officer conducting the exercise is a Capt, how does a Maj finish his/her declaration (this is what I think Max was perhaps alluding to)?

I realize this may be an unwritten "it's always been this way" rule or custom, and is unimportant in the grand scheme of things, but I do think it is valid to seek clarification as to why a Capt or Maj would address a Cpl as "Sir".  I'm not "classist" or meaning to be insulting in any way - I'm just curious as to the reasoning behind what is otherwise an anomaly in how people of different rank address each other.


----------



## Loachman (9 Nov 2015)

I, too, have always used the rank of the person to whom the declaration is given and not been challenged.

I cannot recall the last time that whoever's been running the range has outranked me - it's been a few decades. I would not call a range-running Captain "sir", regardless of whoever of lower rank was taking the declaration, nor would I address the Corporal (or whatever) as "Captain".


----------



## FJAG (9 Nov 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> However, if a Reservist was found with military ammunition outside the times where s 60(1) apply, they could still be on the hook under s 298.  At $100 per offense, if possession of each round is an offense, a box of ammo just got quite expensive...



The issue is not the point in time that you find a reservist in possession of the ammunition but the point in time when he stole it; i.e. the time at which the offence of stealing etc occurred. Most probably this would have been at a time when the individual was subject to the CSD by virtue of 60(1)(c) (most probably by being on duty or present on a defence establishment at the time.)

We very rarely use the Part VII provisions of the NDA. Two that could be used more are s294 (failure to attend reserve training) and s298 (with respect to failing to return issued personal clothing and equipment). The trouble with these provisions is that they require having a civilian prosecutor deal with the issue and the very small fines involved (One does not do a charge for every round taken - the offence is the single act of taking a number of items collectively at one point in time-multiple charges could be laid if separate items are taken at different times) which makes the use of these provision impractical (They do get used on occasion however just to make a point)

 :cheers:


----------



## dapaterson (9 Nov 2015)

FJAG said:
			
		

> The issue is not the point in time that you find a reservist in possession of the ammunition but the point in time when he stole it; i.e. the time at which the offence of stealing etc occurred. Most probably this would have been at a time when the individual was subject to the CSD by virtue of 60(1)(c) (most probably by being on duty or present on a defence establishment at the time.)



The issue would lie in proving the "when" - can you proved to the learned judge's satisfaction when the theft occured, and that the CSD applied at that time.  The 298 could be a fall back should the "when" not be proven (or provable).



> We very rarely use the Part VII provisions of the NDA. Two that could be used more are s294 (failure to attend reserve training) and s298 (with respect to failing to return issued personal clothing and equipment). The trouble with these provisions is that they require having a civilian prosecutor deal with the issue and the very small fines involved which makes the use of these provision impractical (They do get used on occasion however just to make a point)
> 
> :cheers:



Depending on how expansive a view of 298 you take - for example, if each item was a separate charge - the long list of items on someone's clothing docs could add up to quite a substantial fine.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Nov 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> However, if a Reservist was found with military ammunition outside the times where s 60(1) apply, they could still be on the hook under s 298.  At $100 per offense, if possession of each round is an offense, a box of ammo just got quite expensive...



I would have to go look at my NATO casings to see if there is a Lot # stamped on them. Loose rounds might be hard to prove if said reservist was a active shooter and buys their own ammo. You can buy NATO stamped ammo at gun stores on occasion.


----------



## FJAG (9 Nov 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The issue would lie in proving the "when" - can you proved to the learned judge's satisfaction when the theft occured, and that the CSD applied at that time.  The 298 could be a fall back should the "when" not be proven (or provable).



You do not take matters to trial UNLESS you have a reasonable likelihood of conviction which means that you already have evidence of the circumstances of the offence (and that may include a date range rather than a single date) and for reservist, that they were subject to the CSD at the time of the offence.

I'm not saying that there aren't circumstances where s298 (especially s298(c)) couldn't apply. I'm just saying its impractical and a very narrow situation. I'm personally not aware of any situation where it was used.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Depending on how expansive a view of 298 you take - for example, if each item was a separate charge - the long list of items on someone's clothing docs could add up to quite a substantial fine.



It's not the "expansive view" that "I" take. It's the way the law requires charges to be laid. As an example, I defended a court martial once (one of the few times I defended rather than prosecuted) where the accused had been found in possession of literally thousands of public property items. There were only seventeen (I think. I could be off by a few) charges in total based on the fact that one could only break the offences into that many logical chunks. The principle involved is that the offence is the act of a theft while the number of items stolen at that time are merely part of the particulars of the offence. 

Note too that one should lay only one charge where there is a repetitive theft of various articles stolen from the same person but over a period of time. See Note G to QR&O 103.46 which states: "Where a systematic course of petty thefts from the same owner has been perpetrated over a period, it is not necessary to charge each act as a separate offence. The transaction may be treated as one continuous act of stealing and charged in a single charge in which the total amount involved is set out"

I know this rankles your sense of justice, but the prosecutors who will be dealing with these charges have to lay them according to what the law requires not the way that some people would like to see it.

 :cheers:


----------



## dapaterson (9 Nov 2015)

FJAG,

I think we're in violent agreement; my musing on 298 was solely for the narrow situation of "he's got it but we can't prove when he got it".

As for the number of charges (and my use of the royal "you"), ack to the real world intruding on hypotheses - I don't think any prosecutor or judge would wade through individual charges for sock, wool, left and sock, wool, right.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (9 Nov 2015)

While the proper way to lay charge for a theft is to have a single charge per event when a theft occurred, regardless of the number of items stolen on a single occasion (but adding all of their value to determine the category into which the theft falls - as in over or under $5000 for instance), where it comes to a failure to perform a duty, such as the charge of failing to return issued clothing or equipment, a continuing failure can give rise to a separate charge being laid for every day where the person fails to return said equipment. 

A similar distinction could be made if two distinct causes of failure to return equipment/clothing occurs at different time. Ffor instance, a reserve recruit that requests return to unit in the middle of BMQ and fails to return his loaned equipment at the training base, then fails to show up at his unit and is processed through NES action, where he is advised to return his clothing, then advised again to return his equipment could be subject to two such charges.

The actual wording of some such charges make it clear that they are separate for every day and give rise to separate charge until he duty is performed, while in other cases, it is the case law that made such determination.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (9 Nov 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I would have to go look at my NATO casings to see if there is a Lot # stamped on them. Loose rounds might be hard to prove if said reservist was a active shooter and buys their own ammo. You can buy NATO stamped ammo at gun stores on occasion.



Our bullets don't have lots but will have IVI on 98%


----------



## FJAG (9 Nov 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> While the proper way to lay charge for a theft is to have a single charge per event when a theft occurred, regardless of the number of items stolen on a single occasion (but adding all of their value to determine the category into which the theft falls - as in over or under $5000 for instance), where it comes to a failure to perform a duty, such as the charge of failing to return issued clothing or equipment, a continuing failure can give rise to a separate charge being laid for every day where the person fails to return said equipment.



Not generally.

The over/under $5,000 distinction appears under the Criminal Code and creates two separate offences, one of which has distinctly more serious consequences but has no relevance in a s 298 charge. S 298 is an offence "at the relevant time" i.e the time when found in possession or at the time that he refused to deliver up the property etc. A continuing failure per se is not an offence that creates a new offence for every day that he has the property.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> A similar distinction could be made if two distinct causes of failure to return equipment/clothing occurs at different time. Ffor instance, a reserve recruit that requests return to unit in the middle of BMQ and fails to return his loaned equipment at the training base, then fails to show up at his unit and is processed through NES action, where he is advised to return his clothing, then advised again to return his equipment could be subject to two such charges.


. 

This is potentially possible. If there were, for example, two separate and distinct orders to come in and deliver up the equipment and he fails to attend at either one then two charges could be laid and two fines given.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The actual wording of some such charges make it clear that they are separate for every day and give rise to separate charge until he duty is performed, while in other cases, it is the case law that made such determination.



You are correct that some charges call for a "per day" offence such as s 294 which provides a separate offence for every training day that the member fails to attend and s 295 which creates a separate offence for every day a member actually parades with his equipment unserviceable etc.

While "case law" can and does expand civil law there must be clear and concise statute law to create an offence particularly where there are penal consequences. There is no case law to support the idea that "a continuing failure can give rise to a separate charge being laid for every day where the person fails to return said equipment" and it's highly unlikely that a judge would ever rule in favour of such a notion.

Let's talk practicality as well. 

Many many years ago as a young DJA I had responsibility to take the final action on NES kit recovery within my Militia District. Quite frankly there was very little administrative action going on at the various unit levels to actually recover kit before the file came to me; letters weren't sent, phone calls weren't made etc. After six months to a year of no admin action the units suddenly expected the lawyers to work their magic. Admittedly the folks at the unit are usually much too busy on other things to give NES processing much priority.

You can be pretty sure that when Pte Bloggins had suddenly stopped parading that, much more likely then not, no one had ever actually gotten in touch with him in a way that I as a prosecutor could take before a court and definitively convince a judge that the offence happened on day x. 

You can also count on the fact that a) I would under no circumstances lay 180 or 360 separate charges for each day Bloggins had the gear or, b) if I, during some moment of psychosis, had hit the copy and paste key 180 to 360 times on the charge sheet, that the judge would never give multiple convictions or issue multiple fines. 

Don't forget that there is a simple truth about NES kit recovery which is that any fines awarded or any compensation for lost kit taken through the civil courts goes into general revenues and is not designated to actually allow for the unit or DND to buy more kit. (In fact when we did want to set examples we always went the civil route rather than the criminal route because the kit was worth a lot more than the fine available so we maximized recovery potential.) 

The most desirable result, especially for unique regimental kit issued by the unit, was to get to Pte Bloggins' house and physically get the kit back from him and back into unit stores. The threat of legal action and even actual judgements rarely worked anyway because most judgements and/or fines are usually uncollectable anyway (simply put they aren't worth the effort and costs expended). What does work for NES kit collection is persistent, in-your-face action on Bloggins' door step.

 :cheers:


----------



## sidemount (9 Nov 2015)

Man this thread has really gone well beyond what I was expecting...both in entertainment value and some new knowledge. Either way it was a good read checking it when I got home today!


----------



## Pusser (10 Nov 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I would have to go look at my NATO casings to see if there is a Lot # stamped on them. Loose rounds might be hard to prove if said reservist was a active shooter and buys their own ammo. You can buy NATO stamped ammo at gun stores on occasion.



All ammunition (at least from a reputable supplier) will have a lot number.  However, it is not stamped on small arms ammunition (not enough room), but is noted on the packaging.  We actually have to destroy a significant amount of small arms ammunition due to "lost identity" (i.e. once it's out of the box, we don't know where it came from, how old it is, etc.)  That "foresight" mark means that the ammunition meets the NATO standard for interchangability, theoretically meaning that any weapon in NATO that takes that size of ammunition can use it, regardless of who or what nation manufactures it.  In practice, however, nations only tend to use their own ammunition.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (10 Nov 2015)

Note that the circled cross is only interchangability.  The ammunition should chamber and fire in weapons of the same calibre.  There is no guarantee of performance or that you can fire more than once.

The clover leaf symbol is interoperability.  This ammunition has been tested and will perform to set standards for safety, terminal effects, range, weapon function, and packaging.  If the cloverleaf is in a box, then the link is interoperable as well.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (10 Nov 2015)

The German 7.62mm does have the Lot number. I can't remember if their 5.56mm does or does not.


----------

