# Charges in Joshua Caleb Baker 2010 death



## Old Sweat (29 Jun 2011)

The following story from the Ottawa Citizen is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright act.


Two Canadian soldiers charged in death of colleague

Postmedia News June 29, 2011 8:30 PM

OTTAWA — Two Canadian soldiers have been charged with manslaughter in the death of Cpl. Joshua Caleb Baker.

In a statement released Wednesday, the Department of National Defence said that following an investigation by the Canadian Forces, Maj. Darryl Watts and Warrant Officer Paul Ravensdale face six charges and five alternate charges each in relation to the death of Baker and the injury of four other soldiers.

The incident occurred on a training range in Afghanistan on Feb. 12, 2010.

The 24-year-old Edmonton-based reservist died in an explosion during a "routine" training exercise at a range four kilometres north of Kandahar City.

Daniel Menard, who was then the commander of Canadian troops in Afghanistan, described the training at the time as "normal for soldiers in theatre" and "essential in helping them to maintain high levels on expertise."

The military was particularly tight-lipped about the death at the time.

On Wednesday, officials announced the charges against Watts and Ravensdale, which include manslaughter, four counts of unlawfully causing bodily harm and negligent performance of a military duty. In the alternative to manslaughter, the soldiers would be charged with the lesser offence of death by criminal negligence and in the alternative to unlawfully causing bodily harm, they would be charged with causing bodily harm by criminal negligence.

"It is alleged that the proper safety procedures were not followed during the training exercise. The case will now proceed through the military justice system," Defence Department officials said in a news release.

Following the incident in Afghanistan, the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, the independent policing unit for the military, was called in to investigate the death and injuries.

Now that the charges have been laid, they will proceed through the military justice system, spokeswoman Capt. Karina Holder told Postmedia News. The charges will have to be approved and then may be sent to a court martial.

The officers face six charges and five alternate charges, meaning that the officers will not be charged under all 11.

"It is a serious charge and it's a tragic situation," Holder said. "Thankfully these types of charges are rare."

She said the last time the CFNIS laid a manslaughter charge was in 2007. Cpl. Matthew Wilcox was charged in the death of Cpl. Kevin Megeney. That court martial process is ongoing, Holder said.

Holder said Baker's family has been informed and requested privacy.

Baker's death was the first time in eight years that a Canadian was killed during a training accident in Afghanistan.

Fellow soldiers described Baker as a tough and strong natural leader with a "laugh rumoured to cure cancer."

Baker, who served with the Loyal Edmonton Regiment, was the 140th Canadian soldier and ninth reservist to be killed in Afghanistan. Now 157 soldiers have died.

Once regarded as weekend soldiers, the reservists now make up between 10 and 20 per cent of every rotation and perform many key jobs, as the regular forces have been stretched thin by repeated deployments in Afghanistan and Canada's military obligations elsewhere.


_- mod edit to clean up thread title to parallel latest new charges -_


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Jun 2011)

> The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS), the investigative arm of the Canadian Forces Military Police, today charged two Canadian Forces members for an incident that occurred on a training range in Afghanistan on February 12, 2010. The Officer in Charge, Major Darryl Watts, and the Range Safety Officer, Warrant Officer Paul Ravensdale, face six charges and five alternate charges each in relation to the death of Corporal Joshua Caleb Baker and the injury of four other soldiers.
> 
> Major Watts and Warrant Officer Ravensdale are each charged with the following:
> one count of manslaughter, contrary to section 130 of the National Defence Act (NDA), pursuant to section 236(B) of the Criminal Code of Canada (CCC). In the alternate, one count of death by criminal negligence, contrary to section 130 of the National Defence Act (NDA), pursuant to section 220(B) of the Criminal Code of Canada (CCC);
> ...


Source:  CFNIS news release, 29 Jun 11


----------



## 211RadOp (29 Jun 2011)

Just heard this on the news.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110629/two-charged-in-death-of-cpl-joseph-baker-110629/

From CTV News

CTV.ca News Staff

Date: Wed. Jun. 29 2011 9:28 PM ET

Two soldiers are facing charges in connection with the death of another soldier during an incident on a training range in Afghanistan early last year. 

The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS), the investigative arm of the Canadian Forces Military Police, said the two soldiers each face six charges, including manslaughter, in the death of Cpl. Joshua Baker. 

The 24-year-old Edmonton native died on Feb. 12, 2010 during a training exercise in Kandahar city. The incident left four other soldiers injured. 

Few other details were released about the circumstances surrounding Baker's death. 

According to a news release issued by the CFNIS, Maj. Darryl Watts, who was the officer in charge at the time of the incident, and Warrant Officer Paul Ravensdale, the range safety officer, are each also charged with one count of negligent performance of a military duty, as well as four counts of unlawfully causing bodily harm. 

"It is alleged that the proper safety procedures were not followed during the training exercise," the news release reads. "The case will now proceed through the military justice system."


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Jun 2011)

We will remind everyone that this is an open case and the accused deserve their day in court.

We won't have any speculation, rumour, innuendo or statements of (supposed) facts.

We'll let this unfold as we always do, as quiet professionals.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Jan 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> *We will remind everyone that this is an open case and the accused deserve their day in court.
> 
> We won't have any speculation, rumour, innuendo or statements of (supposed) facts.
> 
> ...


All that said, the latest.....


> The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS) yesterday laid additional charges in relation to the death of Corporal Joshua Baker and the injury of four other soldiers on a training range in Afghanistan in February of 2010. Major Christopher Lunney, who at the time was the Officer Commanding Stabilization Company A, a sub-unit of the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Kandahar, is charged with the following:
> 
> - three counts of Negligent Performance of a Military Duty, contrary to section 124 of the National Defence Act;
> - two counts of Breach of Duty, contrary to section 130 of the National Defence Act, pursuant to section 80 of the Criminal Code.
> ...


CFNIS news release, 12 Jan 12


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Jan 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> All that said, the latest.....CFNIS news release, 12 Jan 12



Chris Lunney is a friend of mine. He's mentored young officers and been there, done that. Has several t-shirts. Damn what a way to find out.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Sep 2012)

Bumped with the latest - a reminder:  *Under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, "any person charged with an offence has the right .... to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal"*


> Major Christopher Lunney will face a General Court Martial commencing September 13, 2012, in relation to the death of Corporal Joshua Baker and the injury of four other soldiers on a training range in Afghanistan in February 2010.
> 
> When:             September 13, 2012 at 9:30 a.m.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Sep 2012)

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._


> A teary military officer has pleaded guilty to negligent performance of duty over a 2010 training incident that killed a reservist and injured four others in Afghanistan.
> 
> Four other charges were dropped by a military prosecutor.
> 
> ...


The Canadian Press, 13 Sept 12

Edited to add CF news release on sentencing:





> Commander Peter Lamont, a Canadian Forces military judge, has sentenced Major Christopher Lunney to a reduction in rank to Captain and a severe reprimand in relation to the death of Corporal Joshua Baker and the injury of four other soldiers.
> 
> The incident occurred on a training range in Afghanistan in February 2010. At the time, Maj. Lunney was the Officer Commanding Stabilization Company A, a sub-unit of the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Kandahar.
> 
> General court martial proceedings against Maj. Lunney began on September 13, 2012, in Gatineau, Quebec. At the court martial, Maj. Lunney pleaded guilty to negligent performance of a military duty. Two other charges of negligent performance of a military duty and two charges of breach of duty with respect to explosives were withdrawn ....


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Sep 2012)

Major Lunney is a friend of mine.  This must have been terribly difficult for him....


----------



## ArmyRick (13 Sep 2012)

Major Lunney was my platoon commander back in the nineties. Damn. Will wait and see what happens.


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Sep 2012)

I just dead that he received a severe reprimand and a reduction in rank to captain.


----------



## Redeye (14 Sep 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I just dead that he received a severe reprimand and a reduction in rank to captain.



Yes.

He plead guilty, accepted the responsibility, and I think that's pretty much the picture of honour and integrity. He made a grievous mistake but did the right thing in the aftermath. I hope it brings some closure to the family, and I'm pleased that in the wake of the horror, he set a strong example for how an officer should act.


----------



## Armymedic (14 Sep 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Yes.
> 
> He plead guilty, accepted the responsibility, and I think that's pretty much the picture of honour and integrity. He made a grievous mistake but did the right thing in the aftermath. I hope it brings some closure to the family, and I'm pleased that in the wake of the horror, he set a strong example for how an officer should act.



Just read about this in the news. I could not agree more.


----------



## GAP (14 Sep 2012)

A Vancouver Sun article..........

Teary officer pleads guilty in 2010 training-range death in Afghanistan
 By Bruce Cheadle, The Canadian Press September 13, 2012
Article Link

 GATINEAU, Que. - A decorated Canadian Forces officer was hailed by a military prosecutor for his "integrity and honour" Wednesday even as he pleaded guilty to negligent performance of duty.

Maj. Christopher Lunney, 42, had to pause to compose himself several times as he told a court martial of his shock and remorse over the friendly-fire incident in Afghanistan that took the life of Cpl. Josh Baker and wounded four others.

"I can offer no words of regret or apology that will address their loss," Lunney said of the Baker family.

Lunney's was the first of three courts martial resulting from the February 2010 training incident at a range northeast of Kandahar, when an explosive Claymore mine packed with 700 steel balls raked a Canadian Forces platoon.

The agreed statement of facts entered with his guilty plea may hint at the defence that will be mounted when two other soldiers under Lunney's command are tried on charges of manslaughter in relation to Cpl. Baker's death.

The court martial heard that the reservists involved in the incident "had been validated and declared operationally ready for deployment" to Afghanistan, but that they had received no training with the C19 explosive, also known as a Claymore, that killed Cpl. Baker.

The court martial also heard that, unbeknownst to Lunney, the captain leading the platoon training that day — who has since been promoted to major — had no training or qualifications on the C19, and in fact had never used a Claymore before the deadly explosion.

Lunney's negligence was in failing to ensure that Capt. Darryl Watts was properly qualified, something the major had assumed because of Watts' rank at the time.

Four other charges against Lunney were dropped.

"What transpired that day in Afghanistan was an avoidable incident," Lunney's civilian lawyer, Phillip Millar, told the court martial, adding there were "triable issues" that could have been mounted in his client's defence.

Instead, Lunney had instructed his lawyer that "the buck stops with me."

Cmdr. Peter Lemont, the presiding judge, accepted a joint sentencing agreement that will see Lunney demoted to captain and receive a severe reprimand.

The military prosecution in its sentencing submission noted the seriousness of the incident and its tragic consequences and said Lunney's demotion was needed for general deterrence.

"Maj. Lunney's words make it clear that specific deterrence is not at issue here," added Maj. Anthony Tamburro.

The prosecutor also praised Lunney's swift action after the incident, co-ordinating the rescue efforts and then securing the scene for military investigators, including collecting witness statements, photo and video evidence and waiving his own right to counsel.

"Major Lunney has acted with integrity and honour in the aftermath," said Tamburro, as Lunney's wife sat in the near empty court.

Lunney has served as a Canadian Forces liaison with families of slain soldiers, and delivered nine Canadian flags from their caskets during the course of his duties.

"I have seen that sorrow first hand," Lunney told the hearing, his voice cracking.

He also survived a bomb blast that destroyed his Iltis vehicle in Bosnia in 1994, and testified he knows the mental and physical strength required to recover.

Six weeks before the training incident, the stabilization force to which Lunney was attached suffered a deadly roadside bomb blast, killing four Canadians, including journalist Michelle Lang.

Stripping Lunney of his major's rank, said his lawyer, is no small matter.

It's a rank, Millar told the court, Lunney achieved "literally, not figuratively, through his own blood, sweat and tears and that of his family."
end


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Sep 2012)

I'd expect no less of Captain Lunney.  He is indeed a man of honour.  As stated previously in this thread, he has accepted his responsibility.

This part is telling of his character:



> "What transpired that day in Afghanistan was an avoidable incident," Lunney's civilian lawyer, Phillip Millar, told the court martial, adding there were "triable issues" that could have been mounted in his client's defence.
> 
> Instead, Lunney had instructed his lawyer that "*the buck stops with me*."



A shitty situation, but I think that Captain Lunney has demonstrated strong leadership.  My  :2c:


----------



## Maxadia (14 Sep 2012)

I glad to see that they are also stopping with a demotion in rank, and a severe reprimand, although there may be many who think it is not enough.  When you have a good troop like this, it's always a good idea to do your best to retain them in the forces.


----------



## dangles (14 Sep 2012)

RDJP said:
			
		

> I glad to see that they are also stopping with a demotion in rank, and a severe reprimand, although there may be many who think it is not enough.  When you have a good troop like this, it's always a good idea to do your best to retain them in the forces.



This is a terrible unfortunate situation. But I am curious as to what a severe reprimand entails?


----------



## painswessex (14 Sep 2012)

Great honor from the Capt. I do believe that a severe repremand is a written letter etc. that is permanently on his file.

I do agree that there are some people that would say it is not enough. As a former member this makes me proud to hear that he took responsibility for his actions. I would serve under this officer any day. Much respect for him.


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Sep 2012)

I know Chris personally. He is a true gentleman and a fine officer. He did the right thing, as opposed to others have done in the past.


Chris


----------



## Retired AF Guy (11 Nov 2012)

The latest update from the Winnipeg Free Press. Reproduced under the Fair Dealings Section of the Copyright Act. 



> Court martial for Calgary reservist begins after fatal training accident in Afghanistan
> 
> By: Bill Graveland, The Canadian Press
> Posted: 3:01 AM
> ...



 Article Link


----------



## PMedMoe (14 Nov 2012)

Tribunal hears negligence killed soldier

It was supposed to be a simple day on the firing range. But due to the negligence of a Canadian Forces reservist, it turned deadly tragic, a prosecutor told a Calgary court martial Tuesday. 

Anthony Tamburro told a panel consisting of five senior military officer the criminal negligence of Maj. Darryl Watts, then a platoon captain stationed in Afghanistan, was to blame for the death of Cpl. Joshua Baker. 

Baker was one of the soldiers under Watts' command on Feb. 12, 2009, when a training exercise went horribly wrong. 

That day "was supposed to be just a simple day at the range," Tamburro said, in his opening address to the five-man panel. "It turned out not to be a simple day ... the day ended in tragedy." 

Watts, 44, faces six charges in connection with Baker's death, the most serious being manslaughter. 

More at link


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Nov 2012)

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2012/11/26/20386706.html

Reservist says he wasn't in charge of range where soldier killed 

By Kevin Martin, Calgary Sun 


Maj. Darryl Watts, the Calgary army reservist charged with manslaughter in an Afghan training exercise, testified Monday he was not the officer in command of the firing range. 

And Watts told defence lawyer Balfour Der he wasn't even familiar with the C19 mines, which were test fired at the end of the Feb. 12, 2010 drill northeast of Kandahar city. 
Watts, testifying at his Calgary court martial hearing at Mewata Armoury, said he delegated the responsibility of the C19 range to his second-in-command, Warrant Officer Paul Ravensdale. 
He said he was only in charge of one of the four ranges set up at Kan Kala, in the desert just northeast of Kandahar. 

"Each range ... was under the supervision of one individual who was trained to conduct that range," Watts told a five-member jury panel of senior officers presiding over his court martial. 
Watts, 42, faces six charges, including manslaughter in connection with the explosion which killed Cpl. Joshua Baker and injured four other soldiers who were members of his platoon.  
  
If convicted Watts could face a number of punishments, from a reduction in rank, to imprisonment. 
Ravensdale is to face a similar hearing on the same charges in the new year. 

Watts' hearing continues.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (1 Dec 2012)

Calgary major's manslaughter verdict in hands of jury
The Canadian Press Posted: Dec 1, 2012 5:24 PM MT Last Updated: Dec 1, 2012 5:23 PM MT






Maj. Darryl Watts faces six charges, including manslaughter, in the Afghanistan training range death of 24-year-old Cpl. Josh Baker. (Jonathan Hayward/Canadian Press)

The fate of a Canadian reservist charged in a fatal training accident in Afghanistan has been placed in the hands of a military jury.

Maj. Darryl Watts, 44, faces charges that include manslaughter, unlawfully causing bodily harm, breach of duty and negligent performance of duty.

Cmdr. Peter Lamont, the military judge overseeing the court martial in Calgary, delivered a two-hour charge to the five-member jury panel late Saturday afternoon.

"The time has come for you to make your finding," said Lamont. "You have now heard all of the evidence. In every court martial there are two judges. I am one — you are the other," he said.

"You are the judges of the facts. You — not I — will determine the evidence in this case."

Cpl. Josh Baker, 24, died and four other soldiers were injured when a Claymore anti-personnel mine, packed with 700 steel balls, peppered their platoon on a training range near Kandahar city in February 2010.

The Crown argues that Watts, who was the platoon commander, turned a blind eye to safety standards and abdicated his duty as a leader during the exercise.

"Maj. Watts, being the platoon commander having ordered his platoon onto that range, is responsible for the conduct of the range," said senior prosecutor Maj. Tony Tamburro in an interview with reporters Saturday.

"He can delegate certain tasks to his subordinates but he still remains accountable for the way those tasks are performed."

The defence counters that Watts had no training on the Claymore, so he handed over responsibility for safety to his second-in-command, who was an expert on the weapon.

Cmdr. Lamont told the panel it had to be sure within a reasonable doubt that Watts was guilty of the charges he has been charged with and that every person charged with an offence is presumed to be innocent.

"You must find the accused innocent of the offence unless the prosecution proves it beyond a reasonable doubt," said Lamont.

The platoon, which was stationed at Camp Nathan Smith in Kandahar city, usually visited the Kan Kala firing range about once a month.

The day of the accident the range was divided into four training sections.

The first two tests of the anti-personnel mine went off without a hitch. But when the second firing occurred, the ball bearings fired backwards, hitting Baker and four others.

Videos of the accident show several soldiers, including Watts, standing around watching the tests. They were not inside armoured vehicles or standing behind them for cover, as set out in Canadian Forces safety guidelines.

Maj. Tamburro acknowledged that it was a difficult case to prosecute.

"Negligence cases are always somewhat difficult because we're not alleging crimes of intent here. No one has ever alleged that Maj. Watts intentionally harmed anyone or killed anyone," Tamburro said.

Cmdr. Lamont also warned the jury not to go beyond deciding the guilt or innocence of the accused.

"Punishment has no place in your discussion or in your decision," said Lamont.

"It is my job — not yours — to decide what kind of punishment is appropriate."


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (1 Dec 2012)

Seek and accept responsibility

"The defence counters that Watts had no training on the Claymore, so he handed over responsibility for safety to his second-in-command, who was an expert on the weapon."

Or not.

Lunney did, now this guy needs too.


----------



## Maxadia (4 Dec 2012)

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/calgary-reservist-maj-darryl-watts-found-not-guilty-of-manslaughter-1.1065608



> A military jury has found a Calgary reservist not guilty of manslaughter, but guilty of negligent performance and unlawfully causing bodily harm, more than two years after a deadly training accident in Afghanistan.
> Maj. Darryl Watts, 44, was also found not guilty of two counts of breach of duty.
> The five-member military panel produced the verdict after deliberating for four days.
> PHOTOS
> ...


----------



## FJAG (4 Dec 2012)

Verdict is in on the Maj Watts trial.

Not guilty of manslaughter and two other charges but guilty of negligent performance of a military duty and unlawfully causing bodily harm.

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/major-found-not-guilty-of-manslaughter-in-training-death-1.1065573


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (4 Dec 2012)

FJAG when do you anticipated his punishment coming down?


----------



## Occam (4 Dec 2012)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> FJAG when do you anticipated his punishment coming down?



Sentencing starts Jan 14, according to this story.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (4 Dec 2012)

Appreciated


----------



## old medic (28 Jan 2013)

Training manslaughter court martial begins in Shilo

Winnipeg Sun
28 Jan 2013

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2013/01/28/training-manslaughter-court-martial-begins-in-shilo



> A court martial beginning today in CFB Shilo will probe whether a former military officer, previously based in Winnipeg, was responsible for a comrade's death in Afghanistan.
> 
> Cpl. Joshua Caleb Baker, of Edmonton, was 24 when he was killed near Kandahar City in a Feb. 12. 2010, incident on a training range in which four other soldiers were injured.
> 
> ...


----------



## old medic (28 Jan 2013)

CTV Winnipeg
28 Jan 2013

http://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/former-soldier-pleads-not-guilty-to-six-charges-including-manslaughter-1.1132378



> Paul Ravensdale, a retired warrant officer, pleaded not guilty to multiple charges Monday at a court martial in Shilo.
> 
> The charges are for a training accident in February 2010 that killed Cpl. Joshua Baker and injured four other soldiers in Afghanistan.
> 
> ...


----------



## FJAG (29 Jan 2013)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> FJAG when do you anticipated his punishment coming down?



The current court martial schedule has him slated to reappear on Feb 20th. I expect sentencing will take place on that day.


----------



## old medic (4 Feb 2013)

'All hell broke loose and I... don't know what happened'
Video shows soldiers standing in direct sight of landmine
30 Jan 2013
The Canadian Press



> SHILO, Man. -- Three days after leading a training exercise that went horribly wrong and killed a fellow soldier, warrant officer Paul Ravensdale told a military investigator he had no idea what caused the accident.
> 
> "All hell broke loose and I honestly don't know what happened," Ravensdale is heard saying in a recorded interview played Tuesday at his court martial at CFB Shilo in Manitoba.
> 
> ...


----------



## old medic (4 Feb 2013)

Emotional day in military court at C.F.B. Shilo
CTV Winnipeg
04 Feb 2013

http://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/emotional-day-in-military-court-at-c-f-b-shilo-1.1143007



> It was an emotional day of testimony inside the trial of a former Canadian Forces Commander.
> 
> Retired Warrant Officer Paul Ravensdale pleaded not guilty to six charges including manslaughter in death of Corporal Joshua Baker. The 24-year-old died during a training accident in Afghanistan in 2010.  Four other soldiers were injured.
> 
> ...


----------



## old medic (13 Feb 2013)

Deliberations underway in manslaughter court martial
Soldier accused of manslaughter in Afghanistan training accident
CBC News
13 Feb 2013

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2013/02/13/mb-deliberations-court-martial-ravensdale-shilo.html



> Five members of the Canadian military are deciding if one of their peers is guilty of manslaughter on a Manitoba military base.
> 
> Deliberations are underway in the court-martial of former Manitoba soldier Paul Ravensdale.
> 
> ...


----------



## old medic (14 Feb 2013)

Soldier cleared of manslaughter in Afghanistan training accident

The Canadian Press
14 Feb 2013
copy at: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/soldier-cleared-of-manslaughter-in-afghanistan-training-accident-1.1157067



> SHILO, Man. -- A retired Manitoba warrant officer has been found not guilty of manslaughter in a 2010 training accident in Afghanistan that killed a fellow soldier.
> 
> Paul Ravensdale has been convicted of four of the five other charges, the most serious being unlawfully causing bodily harm. The other convictions are on two counts of breach of duty and one count of negligent performance of military duty.
> 
> ...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (14 Feb 2013)

Ravensdale's Lawyer is correct.  Ball bearings go forward in a 45 degree angle, not rearward.  I would really like to see the material presented to see the layout of the C19's in relation to where the troops were.


----------



## FJAG (15 Feb 2013)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Ravensdale's Lawyer is correct.  Ball bearings go forward in a 45 degree angle, not rearward.  I would really like to see the material presented to see the layout of the C19's in relation to where the troops were.


Not just you. This is a safety issue that everyone should be made aware of. 

I would have presumed that if a technical explanation was available that the prosecution would have presented it but the reporting of this case has been of such poor quality that one can't really tell what if any explanation was offered.

One would assume that a technical inspection of the site would have been completed as part of the investigation.

Regardless of what actually caused the ball bearings to travel 'backwards', the RSO failed to ensure that the danger area was clear of unprotected personnel. Tragic failure in leadership at multiple levels.

It's unfortunate that when an event results in legal proceedings, we often keep the technical and safety aspects 'confidential' instead of disseminating them as lessons learned to help prevent further tragedies.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (15 Feb 2013)

Is there any way we can compel them to publish the tech results?


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Feb 2013)

I have one question:


What were the Sgts and MCpls doing? Were they present? Or was it Cpls and below only?


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Feb 2013)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Is there any way we can compel them to publish the tech results?


Dopey civilian question here:  isn't there some sort of mechanism/SOP to ensure such information is shared for the health/safety of others?  One would hope so, but it appears those tidbits haven't even been shared internally.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (15 Feb 2013)

Jim I can't be 100% but WO Ravensdale was the lead man on the ground, the SME on the wpn and I believe was overseeing total set up.


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Feb 2013)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Jim I can't be 100% but WO Ravensdale was the lead man on the ground, the SME on the wpn and I believe was overseeing total set up.



Understood, but one of the duties of an NCO, as you know, is to ensure the troops are safe on a range. My point is that one of the Sgts or MCpls should have been appointed to ensure the tps were in the LAVs.....or am I right out of it?


----------



## dangerboy (15 Feb 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Understood, but one of the duties of an NCO, as you know, is to ensure the troops are safe on a range. My point is that one of the Sgts or MCpls should have been appointed to ensure the tps were in the LAVs.....or am I right out of it?



Jim, I agree with your thinking.  A lot of people are asking the same questions about the Section Comd/2 ICs.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Feb 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Dopey civilian question here:  isn't there some sort of mechanism/SOP to ensure such information is shared for the health/safety of others?  One would hope so, but it appears those tidbits haven't even been shared internally.



When the trial is done, it's results will be published.  As courts martial are public trials, there is no secrecy as to what comes out during their conduct.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Feb 2013)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> When the trial is done, it's results will be published.  As courts martial are public trials, there is no secrecy as to what comes out during their conduct.


Seen - thanks!


----------



## PanaEng (15 Feb 2013)

There was a BOI conducted. The technical findings will be contained therein. Does anyone have information on when or if it will be released?

Indeed, the ball bearings don't go backwards. That would indicate a systemic manufacturing error which would have been seen more than once.
The only 2 ways that the projectiles ended up going towards the troops is that it was placed wrong ("FRONT TOWARDS ENEMY") - it could happen if some troop was totally disoriented and no one checked it or double-checked (as should have been the case); (I think it should actually say: THIS SIDE TOWARDS ENEMY)
or that the weapon got disrupted by either the blast from a nearby C19 or by someone pulling or tripping over the cable resulting in misalignment.

Can't comment at the moment about the minimum distance between C19s or other demolitions (not fired simultaneously) or if it should even be allowed to place multiple C19 then fired consecutively. The safest course would be to place and fire individually. (If multiple placement is allowed, my personal opinion would be to have a min of  20m between wpns, side by side only and no other demolitions in the relay.) All that may be clarified with the outcomes of the BOI.

Also of concern is one comment in the comments section from a guy that apparently is or was in the military. He said he used pickets to anchor the wpn. DO NOT USE STEEL PICKETS!  or any metal pickets. That will increase the safety template to 1km around the wpn. 

Chimo!


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Feb 2013)

PanaEng said:
			
		

> There was a BOI conducted. The technical findings will be contained therein. Does anyone have information on when or if it will be released?


Quick Google-fu = nothing in the public domain yet.

If it will be released publicly, maybe the powers that be will wait until any court proceedings are all wrapped up?


----------



## Infanteer (15 Feb 2013)

BOI's aren't, as far as I know, generally released and it would take a Information Act request to secure the findings of the Board.


----------



## PanaEng (15 Feb 2013)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> BOI's aren't, as far as I know, generally released and it would take a Information Act request to secure the findings of the Board.


Hopefully the findings will make their way into the Training Safety manuals and other publications related to the use of this weapon soon if not already covered.


----------



## ammocat (15 Feb 2013)

It will interesting to see what comes out of this as far as new training regulations, safety procedures, and the actual cause.  I wonder if lack of training or lack of proper training will be a contributing factor.  Years ago when I was still in the infantry we carried the practice mines regularly during training.  We never had all the accessories for them so you would unfold the legs, place it on the ground, and walk back to you position.  No aiming, no accounting for safety distances, missiles and debris being fired backwards, etc.  I am sure it was all in the lectures, but not practiced in the field.  Firing of live ones was a rare event.  Maybe regular use of the live item so troops are familiar with its characteristics would help.  Of course things might be different now.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (16 Feb 2013)

I see reports of your demise has been greatly exaggerated AC


----------



## Nfld Sapper (16 Feb 2013)

Sources close to me indicate that the C-19's where set up correctly but the successive concussion waves knocked over said C19 also they indicate that the LAV's where peppered from the ricochets too...

Take it for what it's worth.......


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Feb 2013)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> BOI's aren't, as far as I know, generally released and it would take a Information Act request to secure the findings of the Board.



I'm sure the MSM has already applied..............from a number of sources.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (16 Feb 2013)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Sources close to me indicate that the C-19's where set up correctly but the successive concussion waves knocked over said C19 also they indicate that the LAV's where peppered from the ricochets too...
> 
> Take it for what it's worth.......



Hopefully a report will be made where we can see the position of the C19's in relation to all the personel.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (16 Feb 2013)

I realize this was operational however the setting for the range seemed relaxed ie not in any immediate danger.  Therefore reading the C19 pub it is clear many things fell to the wayside.  


*Before connecting the blasting cap to the firing device, the safety bail must be in the "SAFE" position.
All personnel with in 250 metres of the front and sides of the weapon, and who are within 100 metres
of the rear of the weapon, must be under cover*


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Feb 2013)

I'm pretty sure all the water cooler talk and what should be and what is supposed to be, navel gazing et al was all covered at the trial.


----------



## 57Chevy (20 Feb 2013)

Shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

Jail or reprimand? Military judge to decide fate of convicted Calgary reservist
 The Canadian Press  By Bill Graveland, 20 Feb


CALGARY - A veteran Canadian Forces reservist convicted in a deadly training accident in Afghanistan is to learn his fate today when a military judge sentences him.

Cmdr. Peter Lamont could send Maj. Darryl Watts to jail, order him thrown out of the Canadian Forces in disgrace or demote him.

Watts was found guilty in December of unlawfully causing bodily harm and negligent performance of military duty in the training accident north of Kandahar City.

Cpl. Josh Baker, 24, died when an anti-personnel mine loaded with 700 steel balls peppered a platoon on a practice range three years ago. Four other soldiers hit by the blast were seriously injured.

The prosecution argued during the trial that Watts, who was the platoon commander, didn't enforce safety standards and abdicated his duty as leader when he handed over responsibility to Warrant Officer Paul Ravensdale.

The defence argued that Watts's blameworthiness is on the low end of the scale, since no one could have predicted what his lawyer called a "freak accident."

"He should only receive a very minimum sentence ... a reprimand," defence lawyer Balfour Der said after a sentencing hearing last month.

"Maj. Watts was found guilty, but it's as marginal as it can be," he added.

"I'm fairly confident that under these circumstances he's not going to get anything more than a reprimand."

But the prosecution said Watts should spend time behind bars.

"There's little evidence of remorse from Maj. Watts or that he has accepted responsibility for his actions," Maj. Dylan Kerr argued during the hearing.

Kerr suggested a message must be sent about Watts's part in the accident. He has called for 18 months in jail as well as outright dismissal or a demotion of two ranks to lieutenant.

The court martial heard that the range was divided into four training sections that day. The first two tests of the anti-personnel mine went off without a hitch. But when the second firing occurred, the ball bearings fired backwards, hitting Baker and the others.

Videos show several soldiers, including Watts, standing around watching the test. They are not inside armoured vehicles or standing behind them for cover as set out in safety regulations.

Der said a harsh sentence could destroy his client's life. Watts works as a senior firefighter with the Calgary Fire Department as his regular day-to-day job.

"Jail would likely end his career as a firefighter. It would end his career as a military officer."

Watts's commanding officer, Maj. Christopher Lunney, pleaded guilty in September to negligent performance of duty, was demoted to captain and given a severe reprimand.

Ravensdale, who has since retired, was convicted last week of unlawfully causing bodily harm, two counts of breach of duty and one count of negligent performance of military duty. He has yet to be sentenced.


----------



## kratz (20 Feb 2013)

shared from CBC.ca



> A Calgary reservist has been sentenced to a reduction in rank and a severe reprimand for his role in a soldier's death during a live-fire training exercise in Afghanistan.
> 
> Maj. Darryl Watts was found guilty last year of unlawfully causing bodily harm and negligent performance of duty.
> 
> ...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Feb 2013)

So what does a severe reprimand mean for an Officer?


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Feb 2013)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> So what does a severe reprimand mean for an Officer?



In theory he should not progress beyond captain rank.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Apr 2013)

> Prosecutors are seeking a harsher sentence for a veteran Canadian Forces reservist convicted in a deadly Afghanistan training accident.
> 
> Darryl Watts was found guilty in December of unlawfully causing bodily harm and negligent performance of military duty, but not guilty of manslaughter. He was demoted two ranks to lieutenant from major and given a severe reprimand.
> 
> ...


The Canadian Press, 10 Apr 13


----------



## McG (4 Apr 2014)

It seems Lt Watts is back in court now on his appeal.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Lawyer+tells+court+martial+Calgary+soldier+Darryl+Watts+conviction+totally+unreasonable/9699864/story.html


----------



## Tibbson (4 Apr 2014)

MCG said:
			
		

> It seems Lt Watts is back in court now on his appeal.
> 
> http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Lawyer+tells+court+martial+Calgary+soldier+Darryl+Watts+conviction+totally+unreasonable/9699864/story.html



As is his right but from what I know of the file I think he got off light as it was.  I also find it telling that the lower ranks involved accepted their part in the matter and their punishment but the officer in charge is the one saying he was hard done by.  He failed at leadership at the time and continues to fail in leadership now IMHO.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (4 Apr 2014)

MCG said:
			
		

> It seems Lt Watts is back in court now on his appeal.
> 
> http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Lawyer+tells+court+martial+Calgary+soldier+Darryl+Watts+conviction+totally+unreasonable/9699864/story.html



 :facepalm:


----------



## vonGarvin (4 Apr 2014)

I. Hate. Lawyers. I've been overall  responsible for the safety of ranges more complex. So have many in here...


----------



## Privateer (5 Apr 2014)

The prosecutor is a lawyer too.


----------



## MJP (5 Apr 2014)

Lt. Watts seems to be using the same defense as that Col that got off on an ND by saying he didn't get any training.  I would say I hope it backfires on him but after the Col was found not guilty I can't say I would be surprised if they did the same here.


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Apr 2014)

Privateer said:
			
		

> The prosecutor is a lawyer too.


Also a scumbag by association. They are both involved in sophistry, which has bugger all to do with the truth or justice.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Apr 2014)

It looks like they are saying  the claymore was placed  in the ground backwards.  I wonder if they had ARSOs.


----------



## Tibbson (5 Apr 2014)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Also a scumbag by association. They are both involved in sophistry, which has bugger all to do with the truth or justice.



And that is where people who don't understand the process start to have problems with it.  Truth and justice are only two aspects of the process and its always been that way.  If that was all there was to it then people would not get defence lawyers and they would be forced to testify against themselves in court.  As much as I don't like it, a defence lawyer's job is to ensure his/her clients rights are protected as well and to raise reasonable doubt in regards to the prosecutions case.  They have no obligation to prove the innocence of the accused.  No accused has to prove that in any case.  The prosecution says something and the defence has the obligation to question it where questions can be raised.  After that, who ever has the better argument in keeping with the law often wins.  We all know OJ did it but under the law once the prosecution had him try on the gloves, and it was found those gloves no longer fit most likely because they shrunk when they dried, all bets were off and the prosecution lost it's case.  

Like it or not, and I most certainly don't, if his appeal is accepted it will be because it's felt there are compelling legal arguments for it to be accepted.  If there is, I don't have a problem with that although I'm sure its going to be a reason that's not going to sit well with me.  I DO have a problem with an officer (or SNCO for that matter) who is placed in leadership position and who denies responsibility when things go wrong.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (5 Apr 2014)

As you're very aware the C19 does say which side faces the enemy.



			
				ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> It looks like they are saying  the claymore was placed  in the ground backwards.  I wonder if they had also.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Apr 2014)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> As you're very aware the C19 does say which side faces the enemy.



I sure am.


----------



## OldSolduer (5 Apr 2014)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> It looks like they are saying  the claymore was placed  in the ground backwards.  I wonder if they had ARSOs.



Asking one more time: what were the MCpls and Cpls doing at the time of the range.....


By the look if it videoing for uploading to YouTube later.


----------



## Tibbson (5 Apr 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Asking one more time: what were the MCpls and Cpls doing at the time of the range.....
> 
> 
> By the look if it videoing for uploading to YouTube later.



Yes, videoing, smoking, laughing, watching.....but most disturbing of all they were waiting for direction and correction from their (gasp!) leadership.  Should they have known better?  Sure they should have but this was also a training opportunity for them.   An opportunity for them to be trained properly on all aspects of the weapon system including correct safety procedures.


----------



## OldSolduer (5 Apr 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Yes, videoing, smoking, laughing, watching.....but most disturbing of all they were waiting for direction and correction from their (gasp!) leadership.  Should they have known better?  Sure they should have but this was also a training opportunity for them.   An opportunity for them to be trained properly on all aspects of the weapon system including correct safety procedures.



MCpls are leaders and they should have ordered the troops under hard cover. I am sure the range safety brief would have covered this.

Leadership was absent on all levels.


----------



## Tibbson (5 Apr 2014)

I couldn't agree with you more.


----------



## Privateer (19 Sep 2014)

From The Globe and Mail:  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/soldier-convicted-in-fatal-training-accident-in-afghanistan-wins-appeal/article20692226/



> A Calgary soldier convicted for his part in a fatal training accident in Afghanistan has won his appeal.
> 
> The Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada has entered a finding of not guilty on Lieutenant Darryl Watts’s conviction for negligent performance of duty.
> 
> It also ordered new trials on a conviction of unlawfully causing bodily harm and a second count of negligent performance of duty.


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Sep 2014)

Privateer said:
			
		

> From The Globe and Mail:  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/soldier-convicted-in-fatal-training-accident-in-afghanistan-wins-appeal/article20692226/



 :facepalm: Jesus wept.....


----------



## Nfld Sapper (19 Sep 2014)




----------



## FJAG (22 Sep 2014)

The CMAC's decision is now published here:

http://decisions.cmac-cacm.ca/cmac-cacm/cmac-cacm/en/item/73356/index.do

 :cheers:


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (22 Sep 2014)

FJAG said:
			
		

> The CMAC's decision is now published here:
> 
> http://decisions.cmac-cacm.ca/cmac-cacm/cmac-cacm/en/item/73356/index.do
> 
> :cheers:



I'd like your professional analysis.


----------



## FJAG (23 Sep 2014)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> I'd like your professional analysis.



Okay, I'll give it a shot.

First the easy one which deals with why the CMAC substituted an acquittal on Charge 6.

Charge 6 in effect stated that Watts had a duty for ensuring that before his people trained on a live C19 that they first successfully complete training on inert or practice C19s and that he neglected or failed to do so.

The courts decision is based on factual evidence from the transcript that in fact no such inert or practice C19s were available at the base and therefore it would have been impossible to perform such training. In fact the trial judge had, in his instructions to the panel, said that the panel could take that fact into account.

The CMAC stated that if in fact it is impossible to do the duty (because of the absence of inert and practice C19s) then there can't be a military duty in law to do that and that therefore can't be an offence for failing to do that military duty which is impossible to perform. An acquittal should have been entered at trial.

As to charges four and five (unlawfully causing bodily harm and negligent performance of duty by failing to halt the exercise until everyone was under cover) the CMAC ordered a new trial to take place.

At the core of the CMAC's findings as to charges 4 and 5 are the instructions which were given by the Judge Advocate to the panel. The CMAC considered that these instructions contained errors of such a nature that it was impossible to determine if the panel was mislead in how it should analyse the case. 

With respect to these two charges it should be noted that unlawfully causing bodily harm in charge 4 requires an underlying unlawful act. The prosecution stated that this was the negligent performance of duty as set out in charge 5 so that both charges share the same factual information and legal analysis. The JA in his charge added words to the effect that the panel could consider evidence of a failure to properly train his soldiers in establishing the "duty". This however was not set out in the particulars of charge 5. I agree that the JA should not have included those words in the instructions.

At para 27 the CMAC states that the JA decided not to instruct the panel on certain evidence. That evidence was that Watts had advised Maj Lunney that he was not experienced on the C19; that Lunney allowed the exercise to continue under WO Ravensdale; and that Lunney was aware that Watts could not be the officer in charge. Note that undoubtedly the panel had heard that evidence during the trial and since I do not have the transcript of the actual instructions by the JA on this issue it is difficult to be critical either way. I do agree with the CMAC that this evidence is key to determining if in fact there was a military duty on Watts and to what extent that duty went. The panel should have been given clear instructions on how to deal with that evidence.

The final element to the decision relates to Watt's argument respecting the "reasonable person" standard. In this respect you should note that the CMAC didn't answer the argument in that they found it was not necessary to do so because of the two previous points but it is an interesting argument nonetheless. -- Negligent performance of a military duty has its foundation in basic criminal negligences standards - a person does something that causes harm and is does it in a manner that is a marked departure from how a reasonable person would do it. At the heart is the matter are the elements set out by the Supreme Court of Canada as set out in para 130 which all revolve around choosing to do the thing that causes harm. Watt's argument quite simply is that he did not "choose" to be the OIC practice but in fact was ordered to do so after advising his superiors that he didn't have the experience and in such circumstances his rank, training and experience should be taken into account (and by this he's undoubtedly referring to his lack of training and experience on the C19). That's an interesting question but unfortunately the CMAC avoided answering it. Please note that it is not unusual for appeal courts to provide reasons on only those matters that directly lead to their ruling. In this case the first two sets of errors on charges 4 and 5 were sufficient to order a new trial so it was not necessary to analyse and rule on this final point. It's an interesting argument and it would have been nice if they had though.

In summary, the CMAC's rulings are legally reasonable. I expect there will be many who are unhappy with them but quite simply if there were no inert or practice C19 in theatre to train on then charge 6 should never have been laid; if they were there then  evidence of that fact should have been presented at trial.

One additional comment - I have known the judge advocate who ran this trial for several decades. He was a civilian crown prosecutor before becoming JA and has a ton of experience and skill in both military law and regular criminal law. He's one of our very best judges. The fact of the matter is that every once in a while a judge sees things differently then the CMAC afterwards. Trials are very dynamic and when a judge drafts his instructions to the panel he does not have the benefit of having a transcript of the evidence (only his notes) and generally he has very little time. The CMAC on the other hand has both and therefore can parse the case with true 20/20 hindsight.

At this point folks we're all back to "innocent until proven guilty" and will need to see what the re-trial on charges 4 and 5 will bring.

 :cheers:


----------



## brihard (23 Sep 2014)

A case that nicely highlights the occasional disjunct between 'law' and 'justice'.

You're shooting off claymores on a range, and your troops aren't behind cover. Now, I've never been called to the bar, but I'm an infantry NCO who's shot claymores and run ranges. There was without a shred of doubt criminal stupidity at play here, and as the man in command the functioning of the military demands accountability from the officer in question. I really hope that the furthering of this legal process can arrive at that in some manner. We need people who eff up this badly and who allow troops to be killed or injured as a result to be made an example of for purposes of general deterrence.


----------



## MilEME09 (23 Sep 2014)

Brihard said:
			
		

> A case that nicely highlights the occasional disjunct between 'law' and 'justice'.
> 
> You're shooting off claymores on a range, and your troops aren't behind cover. Now, I've never been called to the bar, but I'm an infantry NCO who's shot claymores and run ranges. There was without a shred of doubt criminal stupidity at play here, and as the man in command the functioning of the military demands accountability from the officer in question. I really hope that the furthering of this legal process can arrive at that in some manner. We need people who eff up this badly and who allow troops to be killed or injured as a result to be made an example of for purposes of general deterrence.



Personally i think this is a witch hunt, others were charged, why is this the only case with such publicity? Why weren't his superiors held to account for putting in charge on a range for a weapon he wasn't experienced or trained with? With the case going back to court, while it means the process and the on going nightmare for Mr. Watts has not ended we may get some more answers.


----------



## FJAG (23 Sep 2014)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Personally i think this is a witch hunt, others were charged, why is this the only case with such publicity? Why weren't his superiors held to account for putting in charge on a range for a weapon he wasn't experienced or trained with? With the case going back to court, while it means the process and the on going nightmare for Mr. Watts has not ended we may get some more answers.



Maj Lunney was his superior. Lunney was charged, pled guilty to negligent performance of duty and sentenced to a reduction in rank to Capt and given a severe reprimand.

His sentencing is here: http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/en/2012/lunney.page

WO Ravensdale was also charged, convicted on four counts, imprisoned for six months (suspended), reduced in rank to sergeant and fined $2,000

His sentencing is here: http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/en/2013/ravensdale-pg.page

 :cheers:


----------



## dangerboy (23 Sep 2014)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Personally i think this is a witch hunt, others were charged, why is this the only case with such publicity? Why weren't his superiors held to account for putting in charge on a range for a weapon he wasn't experienced or trained with? With the case going back to court, while it means the process and the on going nightmare for Mr. Watts has not ended we may get some more answers.



His superiors were held accountable.  His OC was charged, he plead guilty and was reduced in rank to Capt from Maj.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Sep 2014)

I believe Lunney wasn't even near the range when it happened.


----------



## KevinB (2 Oct 2014)

What burns my *** is how an INFANTRY officer who managed to get to Afghanistan can claim they where not at least cognizant of the C19.

It's a Claymore mine - I mean it's not like it was something ridiculously unique.  He did not need to be a SME on the damn thing - just had to run the damn range.  IIRC it is part of the mandatory training package for deploying soldiers... (at least for Infantry types)

In reading the Appeal - I an awestruck that they did not get C19 training before deployment.
 *the only time I fired a live C19 was in Afghan pre-deployment training

To me, it appears that a whole lot of issues are surrounding this case.


However I cannot understand the issues of the case 
1) IF the C-19 misfired, then its the case of life sucks, wear a helmet.  At that point in time, I do not see why anyone would be charged.


2) The "facts" of the case are rather confusing, as it almost seems to be a he said - she said on who was the OIC


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (2 Oct 2014)

Infantry officers are taught and fire the C19 on DP1.1. I blew one on infantryman DP1 and I blew 2 or 3 on my infantry officer DP1.1, I don't understand how anyone with 00180 as a trade can say he does not know how to operate a C19.


----------



## Tibbson (3 Oct 2014)

KevinB said:
			
		

> However I cannot understand the issues of the case
> 1) IF the C-19 misfired, then its the case of life sucks, wear a helmet.  At that point in time, I do not see why anyone would be charged.



The question over whether or not the weapon misfired is, in my opinion, a moot point for the most part.  I don't really care if it fell over post placement and pre firing ir if it was placed wrong or even constructed faulty.  The bottom line in my mind is that leaders had an obligation to ensure the range was run safely and if they had done so by ensuring personel were properly under cover AND far enough away...wwe wouldnt be having this discussion.   Two leaders took responsibility while one person has proven he is no leader.


----------



## KevinB (4 Oct 2014)

Argh -- I had a long post about this that seems to have evaporated.

1) I would argue that the C19 performance is indeed germane to the discussion - as if you have a M67/C13 detonate when pulling the pin (unlikely but bear with me) do you charge the OIC?

2) Members testified they heard WO Ravensdale tell folks to seek cover, I would suggest that you can lead a horse to water...
  I would offer that he identified an issue and gave commands to rectify.

3) I would further argue that given the recent rulings of the courses that both Maj L and WO R probably where advised they could beat the CM, but out of guilt etc they did not attempt.

4) Initially I bore Lt Watts a great deal of animosity, I still think his "I was not experienced on the C19 to be a bullshit cop out" - but I think that the CF Legal system needs a massive overhaul - as frankly the way recent ND stuff is going is farcical, but also I'd be much more interested to see what an AmmoTech has to say about the C19 misfire that some idiot JAG or MP.
  Honestly I would take a Pioneer qualified Cpl opinion on the C19 more than those.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (4 Oct 2014)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Argh -- I had a long post about this that seems to have evaporated.
> 
> 1) I would argue that the C19 performance is indeed germane to the discussion - as if you have a M67/C13 detonate when pulling the pin (unlikely but bear with me) do you charge the OIC?
> 
> ...



I happen to be both an AT and Pnr Cpl.


----------



## KevinB (4 Oct 2014)

I know  

But seriously -- given the claims of a misfire - and a "reverse payload" I'd have been more interested in expert testimonies.


----------



## Tibbson (4 Oct 2014)

KevinB said:
			
		

> I know
> 
> But seriously -- given the claims of a misfire - and a "reverse payload" I'd have been more interested in expert testimonies.



There were three viable options explored by the various experts called to assist with the invest and/or testify .  Misfire, reverse payload or that the weapon was not placed firmly enough given the ground type and that after placement it fell over or had its placement inadvertently adjusted while the firing wire was played out.  No matter what, had the range been set properly and run properly none of the deaths or injuries would have occured


----------



## KevinB (4 Oct 2014)

Let's just agree to disagree in that aspect. 
  Historically I'm aware of training deaths outside the ability of participants and staff to prevent. 

Are transcripts of the incident available?


----------



## FJAG (4 Oct 2014)

KevinB said:
			
		

> . . .  I'd be much more interested to see what an AmmoTech has to say about the C19 misfire that some idiot JAG or MP.
> Honestly I would take a Pioneer qualified Cpl opinion on the C19 more than those.



Jeez Kevin I thought you were smarter than that. 

No MP or JAG provides an opinion in a case about what happened. In each and every case evidence comes from witnesses, either lay witnesses who report on what they did, or saw, or heard, or expert witnesses (such as the ammo techs you refer to) who provide expert opinions based on facts or hypotheticals which have been introduced as evidence in the case.

All that MPs report at trial is what physical evidence they found or what was admitted to them in statements by others. All lawyers do is to present and cross examine witnesses who provide the actual evidence and then provide the court with an analysis of what the presented evidence establishes in the relevant legal framework, often in the face of conflicting fact and expert evidence. 

I think you are being mighty cavalier about who you are calling "idiots".


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (4 Oct 2014)

He's not had good experiences with them.


----------



## Journeyman (5 Oct 2014)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> He's not had good experiences with them.


Who has?    :

My most recent involved having to listen as a military lawyer proudly told us how his associate beat a ND charge against a LCol (because it was into an unloading pit; the fact that it unarguably was negligent weapon-handling was irrelevant).
.....and of course, a Cpl facing a Summary Trial would automatically be found guilty (based on legal precedence), and would likely learn the _correct_ lesson from this -- safe weapon handling.

"Idiots"?  No.  
"Non-productive parasites fostering a nanny-state and a mindless, small-print warning industry because of all the other ambulance-chasing lawyers out there."  Yes.


But we stray....slightly.... from the topic at hand.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (5 Oct 2014)

Perhaps. But I've got a lot of time for FJAG. He provides a perspective most of us don't have by virtue of his trade. And there are pricks in all trades.


----------



## Journeyman (5 Oct 2014)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Perhaps. But I've got a lot of time for FJAG. He provides a perspective most of us don't have by virtue of his trade. And there are pricks in all trades.




Yes, but we both commented on the Branch _as a whole_, not individual members.





			
				Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> He's not had good experiences with them.


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Oct 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> My most recent involved having to listen as a military lawyer proudly told us how his associate beat a ND charge against a LCol (because it was into an unloading pit; the fact that it unarguably was negligent weapon-handling was irrelevant).
> .....and of course, a Cpl facing a Summary Trial would automatically be found guilty (based on legal precedence), and would likely learn the _correct_ lesson from this -- safe weapon handling.



Here's the decision, it made my stomach turn. http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/en/2013/nauss.page

Its unfortunate that by virtue of having summary trials not available as an option for certain ranks, we've created a 2-tier justice system where a Cpl and a Col can be charged for the exact same thing/circumstances, and yet the Cpl gets hammered due to "balance of probabilities", and the Col gets off because he's not guilty due to "reasonable" doubt.

I wouldn't fault the defense lawyer in this case, he just did his job. I fault the LCol for not "seeking and accepting responsibility" and pleading guilty.


----------



## KevinB (5 Oct 2014)

FJAG -- I appreciate your thoughts -- however I feel the system is broken.  I think you are a shining example into what the system should have been (even when I disagree with you)
 Yes I know in theory that the MP's and JAG get SME input.  I've also seen it not work that way...

As Puckchaser alluded to the CF does have a 2 tiered Justice (I prefer Legal) System.   I've seen charges that would have been CM's scuttled to a OC level Summary when the accused said he was going to elect CM as opposed to a CO level Summary.
Looking at a lot of ND's - charges have either not gone forward with, or have been acquitted at trial for legalistic interpretations.
 My own belief that is that if the CF was interested in justice and order, that it would re-vamp the NDA to either allow Legal Representation at the Summery Level (an assisting officer is not a lawyer) or restructure the entire Summary Trial system.


But to the issues at hand -- I understand it is not in the purview of the CM Appeals board to re-open other cases, or render judgements reflecting on other cases - but I see in the Watt's appeal, that if the same logic was followed through then the other cases in this incident are also suspect on judgement (even those who plead guilty).

I do not believe the MP investigative (SIU/NIS) task is well served by that branch and this role would be best served by the RCMP, in this respect I think that an uninvolved entity would be the best as this.


----------



## Tibbson (5 Oct 2014)

> I've seen charges that would have been CM's scuttled to a OC level I do not believe the MP investigative (SIU/NIS) task is well served by that branch and this role would be best served by the RCMP, in this respect I think that an uninvolved entity would be the best as this.



Perhaps this is best served by a new topic but everything you have stated refers to the justice system and trial processes but now you make a statement like this.  I cant help but wonder why you think an RCMP investigation would make a difference.  If you think for one minute that the same decissions you disagree with in the military system(s) dont happen in the civilian system then you are sorely mistaken.  Many of these decissions come based on civilian case law as it is.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Oct 2014)

I agree, broadly, with Kevin, but, probably, for different reasons ...

     1. I think we need a _legal_ system which ought to apply, as far as possible to military personnel and civilians equally, i.e. most offences which are, equally, offences under civil law ought to be tried by civil courts, even when they involve military members
        on military bases or occur outside of Canada. But I also think we need a system of military _justice_ to deal with matters related, primarily, to "good order and service discipline" and to the conduct of operations and it should be equally applicable to
        corporals and colonels; no tiers, ever. As a CO I always felt competent to deal fairly, impartially, justly, will all "service offences," I did seek legal advice when I dealt with a few offences, like those related to drugs, and I would have been content
        to have been able to refer them to a local magistrate. But, a "negligently _____" charge, for any rank up to and including major, was well within my capability to handle at summary trial and for lieutenant colonels and above there were, always,
        colonels and generals with adequate powers. We, COs and commanders, should have had more powers to deal summarily with more people on more issues. We did not need greater powers, just more scope.

     2. I would like to see the RCMP as our police force because I think we lost some vital _military_ functions when we lost e.g. the CProC: traffic control an handling of POWs to name just two. These are infinitely more important to an Army combat
        commander than is investigating most crimes. My sense is that the MP branch are _wannabe_ civilian cops, not _*Military*_ police.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (5 Oct 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 2. I would like to see the RCMP as our police force because I think we lost some vital _military_ functions when we lost e.g. the CProC: traffic control an handling of POWs to name just two. These are infinitely more important to an Army combat
> commander than is investigating most crimes. My sense is that the MP branch are _wannabe_ civilian cops, not _*Military*_ police.



The current model of of the C Pro C as the CF MP Gp still conduct those functions. Combat troops/commanders have bigger issues to worry about than Traffic Control and Detention/POW Ops.

I spend more time in the field as support to combat element while still acting in a Policing role ref: screening, control, Detention and investigation than I do being a "wannabe civil cop."


----------



## Journeyman (5 Oct 2014)

RedcapCrusader said:
			
		

> I spend more time in the field .....


RegF?


----------



## FJAG (5 Oct 2014)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Here's the decision, it made my stomach turn. http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/en/2013/nauss.page
> 
> Its unfortunate that by virtue of having summary trials not available as an option for certain ranks, we've created a 2-tier justice system where a Cpl and a Col can be charged for the exact same thing/circumstances, and yet the Cpl gets hammered due to "balance of probabilities", and the Col gets off because he's not guilty due to "reasonable" doubt.
> 
> I wouldn't fault the defense lawyer in this case, he just did his job. I fault the LCol for not "seeking and accepting responsibility" and pleading guilty.



I was previously aware of this case and it was one that also made me  :facepalm:. I agree that there is no blame to the defence lawyer here; he basically did his job. I agree that the case is one of bad optics and one would have hoped a LCol would simply step up and take a hit - by fighting the case (and especially by winning) he's caused a faulty message to be sent out that there is a two-tier system at play. In fact there isn't one in the way that you think. The fact that a LCol and above can't be tried summarily is to their detriment as it forces them to go into a more formal process where powers of punishment are higher and the matter becomes more public and notorious. The fact is that any soldier between the rank of Pte and Maj charged with a negligent discharge would be in the same position vis-a-vis summary trial v court martial elections. LCols and above are denied the ability to elect the trial to be handled at a lower, more informal level.

I think that the ball in this case was dropped by the prosecution which firstly framed the charges poorly and secondly failed to present sufficient evidence to secure a conviction. It is quite possible that the first error - the bad wording - may have been instrumental in the LCol deciding to plead "not guilty". I know that if I'd been defending him I would certainly have advised him of the fragility of the charge as worded.

 :cheers:


----------



## McG (6 Oct 2014)

Unauthorized and negligent firing of a weapon needs to become a charge (or charges) of its own and not be handled under sect 129.


----------



## FJAG (6 Oct 2014)

KevinB said:
			
		

> FJAG -- I appreciate your thoughts -- however I feel the system is broken.  I think you are a shining example into what the system should have been (even when I disagree with you)
> Yes I know in theory that the MP's and JAG get SME input.  I've also seen it not work that way...
> 
> As Puckchaser alluded to the CF does have a 2 tiered Justice (I prefer Legal) System.   I've seen charges that would have been CM's scuttled to a OC level Summary when the accused said he was going to elect CM as opposed to a CO level Summary.
> ...



Kevin

See my comment above re the two-tier issue. 

I tend to disagree that the legal system is broken but certainly agree that it needs fine tuning from time-to-time.

There was a significant review of the system that started with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and went through the post-Somalia reviews. At the time there were numerous options discussed with the most extreme including taking all powers of detention away from the CO to having courts martial before civilian judges. As with everything made in Canada and by a committee, numerous compromises were made. Most importantly, a periodic review of the military justice system (and the military police) was established by the MND and which review was put in the hands of a highly respected former Supreme Court judge. Much of the justice system as it stands is as a result of his recommendations.

I think that the most important thing one has to keep in mind about summary trials is that they are there so that commanding officers have an efficient process for enforcing day-to-day discipline within their units. At the heart of the matter is that we entrust COs and their delegated officers to make life and death decisions involving their troops in combat. To say that we can't trust them to dispense fair justice to their troops for dirty boots and negligent discharges is simply hypocritical. The corporate decision was to ramp up their training in military justice matters which has in fact greatly improved their performance at STs. Remember in 2012-13 the CF had 62 courts martial and 1210 summary trials (down from 2041 in 2007-8). Do you really want to see the size of the legal branch increase ten fold to provide representation at all those STs?  Not me - I'd rather see the infantry get their mortar platoons back.

Re Watts. True, the Court Martial Appeal Court (who incidentally are all senior civilian court judges) can't change the outcomes of other cases which did not get appealed to them. The fact that Watts won some significant issues on appeal however does not necessarily mean that those cases were wrong. I think we both agree that Nauss decision that he had a negligent discharge (the fired round makes that obvious) just not of the charge as it was worded and presented. I think in the Baker scenario that there had to be culpable individuals - I don't have sufficient detailed knowledge of the case to second guess the findings of the courts.

There are several countries that use civilian police to investigate serious military offences. In my mind they have two great shortcomings 1. a lack of knowledge of the military system, ethos, processes etc so that their investigations are handicapped, and 2. a lack of portability (especially in a timely manner) into hazardous foreign areas where the offence may have taken place thus again impeding the investigation. On the other hand civilian police frequently have more experience with serious crimes than the NIS/MPs. Like everything there are trade-offs.

 :cheers:


----------



## FJAG (6 Oct 2014)

MCG said:
			
		

> Unauthorized and negligent firing of a weapon needs to become a charge (or charges) of its own and not be handled under sect 129.



In 2011-12 there were 256 charges of s129 (negligent discharge) and 556 charges of s129 (other than negligent discharge). In 2012-2013 there were 254 and 422 respectively. 

Prior to Afghanistan there were relatively few negligent discharge charges but thereafter the numbers increased dramatically so that by 2006-7 the JAG reported a serious trend of escalation. By 2007-8 there were 510 negligent discharge charges laid (the vast bulk during training early in the soldiers career). Since then there has been a steady decline attributed by the JAG primarily to better training but also deterrent sentencing at summary trials.

Despite the one case cited above, we have a vast track record of dealing quite well with literally thousands of negligent discharges under the existing s 129 category. There is an old legal adage that says that "hard cases make bad law" which in short means just because one LCol got off doesn't mean we need to change the s129 charge that in general has been working fairly well to address the problem. (We also have s 124 Negligent Performance of a military duty but in my mind a s 129 neglect charge is more apt and unlike s 124, s 129 falls within the jurisdiction of a summary trial)

 :cheers:


----------



## brihard (6 Oct 2014)

MCG said:
			
		

> Unauthorized and negligent firing of a weapon needs to become a charge (or charges) of its own and not be handled under sect 129.



I'll play amateur law nerd on this one...

Unauthorized AND negligent? Or Unauthorized AND/OR Negligent? If you go with strict 'negligent discharge', then the elements of that offense would be 'discharge of a weapon' - which is pretty obvious when it happens - and negligence, which then becomes what is legally wrangled over. The negligent quality of an action must be proven according to the standard of the summary trial or the court martial. Proving negligence, particularly beyond a reasonable doubt, can be damned hard.  Conversely, if you go strictly with 'unauthorized', it could be pretty hard to prove any element of intent, and intent is normally a requisite when laying a charge of just about anything. What is certain is that there would be a lot of new legal challenges to the new offence, and that the so-called 'technicalities' loathed those of us who pride ourselves as professionals would only multiply. The existing charge of conduct prejudicial to the maintenance of good order and discipline offers a good catchers mitt for the various and sundry Stuff Dumb Troops Can Do That's Dumb. Included in such category is of course NDs. 

What we have in the CF is not an inappropriate offense, but rather an ugly blended legal system wherein 'justice' and the uniquely military quality of 'discipline' is increasingly subordinated to 'legalism', but yet has hideous gaps in due process. It's possible under the recent amendments found in the 'Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act'. for instance, for circumstances to exist in which the right combination of the charge and the sentence can allow an officer commanding a company or squadron (or another person delegated by the CO) to saddle a soldier with a criminal record, based on a balance of probabilities burden of broof, without that soldier having had the opportunity to be defended by an actual lawyer. And then on the other hand it's possible for manifest miscarriages of _justice or discipline_ to be perfectly _legal_, with no-brainer ND cases offering a great example.

I do not have solutions to offer. But it's sure as hell flawed.


----------



## Tibbson (6 Oct 2014)

> What we have in the CF is not an inappropriate offense, but rather an ugly blended legal system wherein 'justice' and the uniquely military quality of 'discipline' is increasingly subordinated to 'legalism', but yet has hideous gaps in due process. It's possible under the recent amendments found in the 'Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act'. for instance, for circumstances to exist in which the right combination of the charge and the sentence can allow an officer commanding a company or squadron (or another person delegated by the CO) to saddle a soldier with a criminal record, based on a balance of probabilities burden of broof, without that soldier having had the opportunity to be defended by an actual lawyer. And then on the other hand it's possible for manifest miscarriages of _justice or discipline_ to be perfectly _legal_, with no-brainer ND cases offering a great example.



I have never seen a situation where a summary trials findings would result in a criminal record for a service person and nothing in the recent ammendments changes that from what ive seen.  It would of course go on the members service record for a time but such results would never be submitted to CPIC by the MP.  If a clerical error occurred and they were submitted by the court NCO at an MP Det they would not make it past the staff at the MP national records centre doing the entering.    Only court martial findings get entered.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Oct 2014)

Well I know when I retired having a summary trial conviction stopped me from getting a pardon for a criminal record I had pre-military.


----------



## brihard (6 Oct 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> I have never seen a situation where a summary trials findings would result in a criminal record for a service person and nothing in the recent ammendments changes that from what ive seen.  It would of course go on the members service record for a time but such results would never be submitted to CPIC by the MP.  If a clerical error occurred and they were submitted by the court NCO at an MP Det they would not make it past the staff at the MP national records centre doing the entering.    Only court martial findings get entered.



OK, I may have missed the mark on this one- I'm looking at the newly added S.249.27 of the NDA in the 'strengthening military justice' act. It stipulates that an offense under various CSD sections for which the penalty does not exceed a reprimand, severe reprimand, a month's pay, or minor punishment does not constitute a criminal offense, meaning that a punishment of reduction in rank or any detention would. Both of those fall within the powers of the summary trial. Am I to understand, then, that under NO circumstances are summary trials entered onto what we would consider a 'criminal record'? Although Bruce's comment suggests that they still make it into CRIMS. What's the threshold in the Canadian military law system for a conviction to result in fingeprinting and a submission to the RCMP and that person getting an FPS number? Is it a conviction for any offense in a court martial?


----------



## KevinB (6 Oct 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Perhaps this is best served by a new topic but everything you have stated refers to the justice system and trial processes but now you make a statement like this.  I cant help but wonder why you think an RCMP investigation would make a difference.  If you think for one minute that the same decissions you disagree with in the military system(s) dont happen in the civilian system then you are sorely mistaken.  Many of these decissions come based on civilian case law as it is.


I tilt at a lot of windmills - some with no basis perhaps. (P.S. Spell Check is your friend)
  I feel that whenever a training death occurs - there is pressure exerted to ensure someone (or several) are picked to be visible examples of correction.  I'm not sure if there was undue command influence in this case -- but I have seen it before where a (then) young Major was squashed, and senior personnel where left unmolested.  
  To me the RCMP would remove any real or illusioned command influence.

I've been looking for more testimony/evidence on the incident (C19) and am not pulling a lot up.

From a Justice perspective - if one persons sentence for an incident is 'wrong', then one can make a case the related cases are also incorrect.  I'm not naive enough to understand the Legal system does not work that way - however.


----------



## little jim (6 Oct 2014)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Okay, I'll give it a shot.
> :cheers:



Sorry to get back onto the actual issue of Maj Watts again.

First - FJAG – that you for the informative post.

My concerns here are as follows:

Got it – Maj Watts wasn’t trained on the C19 and given the lack of resources/training aids in theatre cannot be held responsible for a weapon system he hasn’t been formally trained on.  (By extension here I would hate to think there is now a legal precedence against expecting junior officers to read up on things they don’t know.)

But wait a minute.  Maj Watts is a PRes Armour Officer.  He has never formally been qualified on his ability to lead what in essence was an infantry platoon within an infantry company.  So by accepting the Class C contract and employment isn’t there a reasonable expectation that he would be taking responsibility for what he was getting himself into?  If a situation had occurred overseas which questioned his command abilities while conducting operations the expectation I would have now is he would argue he was never trained for so therefore cannot be held responsible for any decisions he made while on deployment.

What is the expectation now for any junior officer (PRes or RegF) deploying on operations.

A friend who is a bit of a self-titled crap-stirrer is trying to find someone who works out of the reserve armouries in Calgary.  He is convinced that the Standing Orders for the KOCR has Maj Watts down as being qualified to run claymore ranges…..but then again it is probably just a template everyone has filled out for the yearly RSO list.


----------



## FJAG (6 Oct 2014)

KevinB said:
			
		

> I've been looking for more testimony/evidence on the incident (C19) and am not pulling a lot up.



And you probably won't. The court posts the decisions it makes and, of course, news reporters that attend the trial post snippets of what they thought they heard in evidence but transcripts are very rarely available online. The court doesn't post them but sometimes public interest groups upload copies.

I believe that in this case a full transcript was made and filed with the Court Martial Appeal Court in Ottawa (I note from the CMAC case index that a nine volume appeal book was filed by the trial court administrator which undoubtedly includes the transcript and all paper exhibits). I would think that as a public record, they should be available for viewing at the court in Ottawa.  I say that with a bit of a caveat in that while I have reviewed court records in the past as a lawyer I've never tried doing it as a retired joe shmoe. If anything however it, or a copy, should be available from the court's administrator or under an Access to Information request (but I don't know what either the court or AtI would charge for copies-and these days pretty much everyone charges for these things.)

You can call the court at (613) 996-6795 or 1-800-665-3329 to see what their policies are.

 :cheers:


----------



## KevinB (7 Oct 2014)

Thanks -- I will try and do just that  :cheers:


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Nov 2014)

This from The Canadian Press:


> The Canadian Forces says it will not challenge a court ruling that overturned a soldier's conviction in a fatal training accident in Afghanistan.
> 
> In September, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada found Darryl Watts of Calgary not guilty of negligent performance of duty.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tibbson (25 Nov 2014)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> This from The Canadian Press:



I've worked with this Maj a number of times and any review is in good hands.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Jan 2015)

Bumped with the latest from The Canadian Press:


> There’s still no decision on whether a Calgary reservist who won an appeal of his conviction in a deadly Afghanistan training accident will face a new trial.
> 
> Last September, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada entered a finding of not guilty on Major Darryl Watts’s conviction for negligent performance of duty. It also ordered a new trial on a conviction of unlawfully causing bodily harm and a second count of negligent performance of duty.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Feb 2015)

And it appears the end of the road has been reached on this one ....


> A military reservist who won an appeal of his conviction in a deadly Afghanistan training accident will not face a new trial.
> 
> But Maj. Darryl Watts says the death of Cpl. Josh Baker and the injuries to four other soldiers still haunt him.
> 
> ...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Feb 2015)

If he was my OC I'd transfer out of the militia unit. This clown has zero leadership abilities.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Feb 2015)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> If he was my OC I'd transfer out of the militia unit.



The only problem with that, which I've seen, is that a vindictive losing unit may contact the gaining unit CoC and poison the waters for the transferring soldier (especially if they know why the soldier is leaving).


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Feb 2015)

Given how public this is I'd take my chances. People of all ranks should avoid this oxygen thief at all costs.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Feb 2015)

> Watts said he still loves being in the military, but his career has stalled.
> He was demoted two ranks to lieutenant and given a severe reprimand after his conviction in December 2012.
> He has since had his rank of major restored.




...and the fuckin' glee club at certain levels in the military still rule.   Way to inspire the troopies you clowns running this circus.


...and, hey asshole, Lt. to Major in 2 years doesn't seem too stalled to me.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Feb 2015)

He'll prob claim PTSD over losing his rank for a short while.


----------



## dapaterson (7 Feb 2015)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ...and, hey asshole, Lt. to Major in 2 years doesn't seem too stalled to me.



He wasn't promoted from Lt to Maj; he had the former finding quashed, so his rank was restored - the original trial was essentially stricken from the books at appeal.  A different situation.


That would be an interesting study, though: look at people reduced in rank in court martial, and see how many made it back to their former rank, and how quickly.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Feb 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> He wasn't promoted from Lt to Maj; he had the former finding quashed, so his rank was restored - the original trial was essentially stricken from the books at appeal.  A different situation.
> That would be an interesting study, though: look at people reduced in rank in court martial, and see how many made it back to their former rank, and how quickly.



My bad.........


----------



## OldSolduer (7 Feb 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> The only problem with that, which I've seen, is that a vindictive losing unit may contact the gaining unit CoC and poison the waters for the transferring soldier (especially if they know why the soldier is leaving).



this is true. I always contact the gaining RSM to extoll the virtues of any soldier that CTs.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Feb 2015)

The comment about his career stalling is poorly thought out.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Feb 2015)

An interesting endorsement of sorts at Calgary city hall, shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42) ....



> Calgary firefighter, Major Darryl Watts received special recognition at City Hall Monday with a presentation that was a bit out of the ordinary for council.
> 
> Watts fought to have his conviction of negligent performance of duty from a fatal training accident in Afghanistan, overturned and has had his military ranking restored.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tibbson (10 Feb 2015)

I personally find this shameful of the Calgary city council.


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Feb 2015)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> I personally find this shameful of the Calgary city council.



This happens because the vast majority of Canadians have little insight into the military world. The do not fully understand the concepts of The Principles of Leadership, accountability, responsibilty as well as unlimited liability.

In my opinion, this individual failed his troops...and therefore failed the nation.


----------



## KevinB (11 Feb 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> This happens because the vast majority of Canadians have little insight into the military world. The do not fully understand the concepts of The Principles of Leadership, accountability, responsibilty as well as unlimited liability.
> 
> In my opinion, this individual failed his troops...and therefore failed the nation.



Agree with both of you 110%


----------



## Naval Reservist (21 Feb 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Warrant Officer Paul Ravensdale, who was running the exercise that day, was found guilty of breach of duty causing death, breach of duty causing bodily harm, unlawfully causing bodily harm and negligent performance of military duty.
> 
> He was acquitted of manslaughter, but the now-retired soldier was given a six-month suspended sentence. He also received a fine and was demoted one rank to sergeant.



Kinda off topic, but im curious based on this situation. Since he was demoted to Sergeant and "retired" (im guessing) shortly there-after, will his pension be based on that of a Warrant or that of a sergeant? Does it depend on the amount of years he was a Warrant?

Edit: I have no idea if it was a honorable discharge or not.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (21 Feb 2015)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> I personally find this shameful of the Calgary city council.



That's okay, Urquhart is one of the City's most despised and hated Councillors. She comes up with some pretty stupid sh!t


----------



## dapaterson (21 Feb 2015)

Naval Reservist said:
			
		

> Kinda off topic, but im curious based on this situation. Since he was demoted to Sergeant and "retired" (im guessing) shortly there-after, will his pension be based on that of a Warrant or that of a sergeant? Does it depend on the amount of years he was a Warrant?
> 
> Edit: I have no idea if it was a honorable discharge or not.



He was not sentenced to dismissal.  There is a possibility there could have been an administrative release; I don't know.

CAF pensions for the Regular Force (and some long-serving full-time Reservists) are based on the average of your est five consecutive years of pensionable earnings, not on your rank on release.


----------

