# HMCS ATHABASKAN crewmember charged with drug/weapon offences, 11 Aug 16



## jollyjacktar (11 Aug 2016)

Shared under the fair dealings provisions of the copyright act.  Photo at story link below.



> HMCS Athabaskan sailor charged with drug trafficking, gun offences in Halifax
> 
> Andrea Gunn | Ottawa Bureau
> Published August 10, 2016 - 11:03am
> ...


----------



## jollyjacktar (10 Jan 2018)

And now he has been convicted and sentenced.



> Sailor gets 4 months, fine for dial-for-dope operation
> 
> STUART PEDDLE The Chronicle Herald
> Published January 9, 2018 - 7:03pm
> ...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 Jan 2018)

Why is he serving this sentence in provincial jail, vice Edmonton?


----------



## Rifleman62 (10 Jan 2018)

BZ to the Commissionaire.


----------



## garb811 (10 Jan 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Why is he serving this sentence in provincial jail, vice Edmonton?


This is the second instance I know of where two Legal officers have struck a plea bargain which entailed having the convicted individual serve their sentence at a provincial jail near where they were based.  

This turns my crank as JAG is the first one to complain when we (MP) use our peace officer authority to lay a criminal charge downtown because of the "importance and primacy of the Military Justice System when there is a military nexus".  Sorry folks, serving time at the CFSPDB, or Unit Detention Room as warranted by the sentence, is also an integral part of the Military Justice System.  If you're going to walk the walk, then talk the talk as well.

My guess is they have predicated this on the fact release proceedings will be immediately commenced and the member will shortly be released from the CAF as opposed to being retained upon completion of his sentence, hence no need to "rehabilitate" him into the military ethos.

As it stands now, there is a serious review underway as to the viability of the CFSPDB and if this trend continues, the arguments to keep it open will be lost and then there will be no option but to send pers sentenced to serve time to a Federal or Provincial Institution.  If that happens, all you will be getting back into the unit for someone who is being retained is someone who hasn't been re-inculcated into the military mindset via CFLRS on steroids (along with whatever educational and treatment programs the member needs in an alcohol and drug free environment for the duration of their sentence) but instead someone who has spent their time in general population, with all the fun, excitement and learning opportunities that brings.


----------



## RCDtpr (10 Jan 2018)

I've seen members sentenced to civilian jails for drug offences due to rehabilitation programs available in those institutions that are unavailable in Edmonton.  Whether this is the case here I don't know.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 Jan 2018)

I have had subordinates  of mine sent to Edmonton to serve time for service offences on a number of occasions. I have taken the tour of Edmonton given by the staff there. It is very enlightening.

Based on what I know, I do not believe for one second that a CF perp is better off in the general population of your local provincial or federal pen, then Edmonton. Your chances of getting shanked or raped in the showers are effectively zero in Edmonton. You will get counselling for whatever life skill deficiency brought you there. You will get PT and healthy food. You will also get an advanced degree in room cleaning and brass polishing 

So, I don't really care how badly you screwed up in the CF. CFSDB may be hard time, but it is safe time. And it will make a better human being at the end (even if release is the ultimate destination) which Is the point, right?

I am not really sure I understand what motivated two military lawyers to recommend to a military judge to send a guy to Provincial jail for a offence that had a military nexus, all of the way.


----------



## Journeyman (11 Jan 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I have taken the tour of Edmonton given by the staff there. It is very enlightening.


I once got to escort a buddy of mine out to the SDB; he was doing a 90-day visit.  Even though I was just signing him over, the place intimidated me.*   


* To be fair, I was a young CbtA MCpl then;  I've since done... _the training marriage_ -- not so readily scared off now.  :nod:


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Jan 2018)

Slightly off topic but relative to the "digger:" when I was a young officer we were taught that most service offences were _*our*_ (institutional Army) *failures* because we (the institution again) had failed to teach and inculcate our values during recruit training. That, we were taught, and the back half of Vol II of QR(Army) confirmed, was why the "training" regime at Edmonton was a double time repeat of the recruit syllabus ... 

As a CO I was never afraid to send a soldier to Edmonton because I believed in the merits of the place ... most soldiers came back "better" in many ways than when they went in and I did not see Edmonton as a step towards release ~ quite the opposite, I saw Edmonton (_circa_ 1980) as an important step towards making a success out of _*our*_ (institutional) failure.

I'm going to say that was the prevailing view when I was a junior officer 1960s, and a CO (1970s and early '80s) it was shared and enunciated by the likes of HC Pitts the Chief of the Land Staff (but we didn't call it that) and JJ Paradis and Charlie Belzile, the Commanders of the Army at the time.


----------



## Rifleman62 (11 Jan 2018)

Had a tour sometime in the mid 80's I think. Same thoughts as others. Pt and Drill in the A.M. and Drill and PT in the P.M.

Stainless steel ablutions, with the story they had to mark time when shaving (??).

There was an Officer in custody, sans rank. Treated the same as everyone else.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (11 Jan 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I am not really sure I understand what motivated two military lawyers to recommend to a military judge to send a guy to Provincial jail for a offence that had a military nexus, all of the way.



Maybe it has something to do with the Notes to QR&O 101.04 - IMPRISONMENT FOR SHORTER TERM


> NOTES
> 
> (A) Although specialized treatment and counselling programmes to deal with drug and alcohol dependencies and similar health problems will be made available to a person serving a term of imprisonment, a member serving a sentence that includes imprisonment will in most cases be considered unfit for further military service. As a result, service prisoners and service convicts will ordinarily not be subjected to the same regime of training that service detainees undergo. In certain cases, exceptions may be made for service prisoners serving a short term of imprisonment provided that it has either been decided to retain the member or no decision to release the member has been made but the circumstances suggest that retention in the Canadian Forces is likely. A punishment of imprisonment will be considered to be of short duration where the term does not exceed 90 days.
> 
> ...



As to the value of the CFSPDB, one thing to keep in mind is that in the scale of punishments "imprisonment" (whether categorized as life, 2 years and more, or less than 2 years) is different from "detention".  Since there is no equivalent to "detention" as a punishment in the Criminal Code and incarceration in a provincial or federal jail, penitentiary or prison is considered imprisonment, then the CF would still require a "detention barracks" to accommodate those members sentenced to the lesser punishment of detention.




> 104.09 – DETENTION
> 
> Section 142 of the National Defence Act provides:
> 
> ...



Of course this is what some people want.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlWd_RvUzqw


----------

