Author Topic: CANFORGEN 097/19 - IMMEDIATE CHANGES TO THE MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM  (Read 2714 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline H11F

  • Guest
  • *
  • 985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 20
Fair point.  Also noticed it is supposed to apply to summary trials, so even if there is a small number of Aboriginal members, theoretically could come up for something as stupid as an AWOL or another one of the 'baby 5' charges.

Read through the NDA changes, and didn't actually see it in any of the ref paras.  May have missed it, but was this consideration officially rolled into the NDA somewhere as a mitigating consideration?

Reminds me that I need to do the presiding officer course refresher; curious if it will be updated to reflect any of this.

I got curious so actually went and read through the changes to the NDA, but didn't actually see anything

I think it depends on where you are looking. For example, I noticed that some QR&Os were updated to reflect the changes (104.19 - Criminal Record has the new 249.27(1)(a) wording), where as the NDA most would access on Justice Law Website doesn't have the 249.27(1)(a) amendment. The Related and Coordinating Amendments to Bill C-77 start at s63(1) I think, but are a pain to go through (IMHO anyways).

H11F.

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 31,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 874
No, I agree, reading the bill was brutal.  I tried but gave up after the third time I lost track of what was original/changed.

Sure it makes sense when you see the NDA with edit changes mode, but it's mostly a tarted up 'track changes' record.

Offline gcclarke

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 29,085
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 851
Fair point.  Also noticed it is supposed to apply to summary trials, so even if there is a small number of Aboriginal members, theoretically could come up for something as stupid as an AWOL or another one of the 'baby 5' charges.

Read through the NDA changes, and didn't actually see it in any of the ref paras.  May have missed it, but was this consideration officially rolled into the NDA somewhere as a mitigating consideration?

Reminds me that I need to do the presiding officer course refresher; curious if it will be updated to reflect any of this.

I got curious so actually went and read through the changes to the NDA, but didn't actually see anything

I don't expect to see much in the way of changes to how summary trials go, considering that folks handing out sentences at summary trials seem to be in the habit of completely ignoring precedent and instead like to just give what they feel like giving, regardless of what everyone else is doing. Expecting anything remotely resembling consistency there is unreasonable.
"Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts.  Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan ‘Press On’ has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race."
- Calvin Coolidge

Offline H11F

  • Guest
  • *
  • 985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 20
I don't expect to see much in the way of changes to how summary trials go, considering that folks handing out sentences at summary trials seem to be in the habit of completely ignoring precedent and instead like to just give what they feel like giving, regardless of what everyone else is doing. Expecting anything remotely resembling consistency there is unreasonable.

Summary trials will eventually be a thing of the past. Bill C-77 even removes the definition from the NDA (if I recall correctly). We will eventually see summary hearings and service infractions.

H11F.

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 73,245
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,920
If we mean for unique (to aboriginals) circumstances to be considered, the law should state it ("unique") plainly*.  Otherwise readers will be prone to the reasonable error that "particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders" is approximately "give mitigating evidence greater weight for aboriginals".

*When something "they meant" has to be explained and clarified in articles and discussions and seminars and PD training etc, it's an indicator for a re-draft.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 31,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 874
I don't expect to see much in the way of changes to how summary trials go, considering that folks handing out sentences at summary trials seem to be in the habit of completely ignoring precedent and instead like to just give what they feel like giving, regardless of what everyone else is doing. Expecting anything remotely resembling consistency there is unreasonable.

That's a pretty broad statement with zero supporting evidence.  I think I've sat through about 20 or so for one reason or another, and even the same charges were apple and orange comparisons, but they generally seemed pretty reasonable and fair in the judgements when you took into account the mitigating/aggravating factors (1st AWOL vs 3rd, for example).  JAGs were consulted for the punishments, so it wasn't done in a bubble.  Even XOs I thought were power mad arseholes were surprisingly fair and reasonable.

JAG reports are pretty consistent stats wise, and unless you review every finding with the facts, pretty hard to make a sweeping statement.  Only a pretty small portion of findings are challenged by the members, and it seems to be a about an even split over time on which ones were quashed, and which ones were upheld, so overall probably working reasonably well.  If 96% never appeal, probably a good indicator that the members generally are okay with the outcomes.  The high 'guity' findings are just an indication that stuff doesn't proceed unless it's pretty clear cut and I've seen a few STs end in not guilty on some of the charges if the evidence didn't support them. Pretty hard to argue AWOL when cameras are pointing at the brow with a DTG though.

Agree this is a weird CANFORGEN, hopefully this is followed up with clarification and actual plain language direction. 

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 152,600
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,483
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Navy Pete beat me to it.

There is no such thing as a "going rate" for a particular charge, if a Presiding Officer is doing their job properly and considering all the aggravating and mitigating factors when sentencing.

A sentence must always be the minimum required to both correct behavior and send a message to others.

This is why it is almost impossible to compare sentences arrived at during various summary trials- there are far too many variables.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 226,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,956
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
It really should be considered for everyone, but given that there are multiple generations that were destroyed by the residential schools and some other fairly awful things that Canada did to it's own people, seems fair that it's (theoretically) mandatory.  Even with the SJC decision, it's not getting done, and was one of the points for action in both the Truth and Reconciliation report as well as the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women report.  Read the summary for both sometime, absolutely appalling what happened.  Aside from the sexual and physical abuse and neglect of children, forced cultural assimilation, kidnapping and separating them from their families and all the other horrors from that, there was also some really awful things like a sled dog slaughter in northern communities by the RCMP.  There are a lot of people that had similarly bad childhoods, but none of that was the result of a systematic campaign against the FN that started hundreds of years ago when Europeans rolled up and the GoC enthusiastically picked up the torch.  The last school closed in the early 90s, so it's not even like it's ancient history.

Highly recommend reading the report; absolutely opened my eyes and really knocked the shine of naivety that I had for Canada as an idea and brought it down to reality. I think Canada as a whole is better than most countries, but that is some really ugly history that we need to confront. It's been going on for generations, and when it's that widespread affecting grandparents down to the kids, it's going to take generation to sort out. 

[/end rant]

The Gladue reports are also supposed to provide some alternative sentencing options, are those even an option for the CMJ system? Some of the recommendations are pretty straightforward (ie person likely has Fetal Alcohol system, so should be sent for diagnosis and maybe have counseling/treatment as part of the sentencing), but others are things like release to the community with conditions, healing lodges, etc to deal with underlying mental health issues (ie trauma from being abused in residential schools). I'm not really sure how they are reconciling the Gladue report goals with using it as a mitigating factor, when we don't have the same sentencing tools that you would on civy side, or how you would even go about getting some kind of equivalent for a FN member. It's already a fairly byzantine bureaucratic process on civvie cases with a huge shortage of report writers, so sounds like it could be a pretty messy complication to any otherwise straightforward CM.

PS they aren't free; suppose anyone has figured out whose FIN code one of those would get charged to?

Thanks for the post and info to consider.  This is a subj I admittedly know very little about;  growing up in a small province (PEI), I've never been aware of the real, national-level history other than broad strokes stuff.  My first awareness of FN issues probably began during the Oka crisis.  At that time I was a young troop in Gagetown and had a fairly one-sided opinion of the situation.

That's not what it says at all, it says "particular attention" is to be afforded, not that leniency or no consideration is to be afforded to anyone of any color or ethnic background. All this additional measure does is create a situation where whoever is dishing out punishments is mandated to consider particulars which evidently have been overlooked so often enough in the past that we've decided they need to be considered, rather than that consideration being optional.

Copy, thanks. 
"What a f$$kin' week!" - me, every Monday at about 1130hrs.