• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canadian soldier charged with feeding cannabis cupcakes to artillery unit during live-fire exercise

LittleBlackDevil

Full Member
Reaction score
89
Points
330

Verdict is in, Guilty on all charges, sentencing Nov 16th.

Well, clearly I was wrong about the strength of the case. I notice that at the bottom of the article it references two statements she gave to the MPs, so I suspect that that is what "cooked her goose" because otherwise it would seem incredibly difficult to prove who was responsible for the cannabis given the number of people involved in an exercise like that.


EDIT TO ADD: It was actually this article posted by @TheMattHan that referenced statements given to Military Police.

IMHO, proper result.

Judging a case based on media reporting is always a dangerous prospect. We have no idea what the evidence actually tendered in court actually was. I'm going to assume that the verdict was just until an appeal court says otherwise, but really hard to form an opinion with the very scant information given by the press.
 

CountDC

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
15
Points
480
well that excuses it - ptsd and mood disorder is a perfect excuse...... send her back to canteen queen.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
702
Points
940

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
4,418
Points
1,060

Submissions completed, prosecution argues the defense has no evidence her mental health influenced her actions, is asking for 1 year in jail, and not a suspended sentence. The decision will be handed down Friday.

Good GIF by Paramount Network
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,287
Points
1,060

And the sentence is in, 30 days in jail, reduction in rank, and dismissal. I think more jail time should of happened but what's dine is done
Does the "up to" 30 days in jail mean there's a chance she'll spend less?
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
277
Points
910
Even at club Ed, if she applies for and is granted serving intermittently
I believe 30 and under used to be in local cells. Anything over was SDB. I don't know anymore. Back in the 90s, we had one of the guys in my reserve unit, spend his time in the London OPP cells after his military trial.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,824
Points
1,040
Just out of curiosity, why is it every time I see a picture of her going into or out of the court she's wearing civilian clothing?

Anybody with the info?

:unsure:
 

MJP

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
384
Points
980
Just out of curiosity, why is it every time I see a picture of her going into or out of the court she's wearing civilian clothing?

Anybody with the info?

:unsure:
Likely medical employment limitations that preclude wearing of the uniform.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
692
Points
990

Submissions completed, prosecution argues the defense has no evidence her mental health influenced her actions, is asking for 1 year in jail, and not a suspended sentence. The decision will be handed down Friday.
That’s quite the sentence the crown had argued for. And while I personally wouldn’t go that far, I’m in no way suggesting that request isn’t without merit.

But “up to 30 days in jail” is quite the leniency compared to what the crown had asked for.

Was the crown being unreasonable in the request? Were they asking for significantly more than they knew they would get, to try to maximize what they actually would get?

Obviously time has passed, massive blocks to many potential careers, no intend to harm (although under the circumstances, damn lucky), life lessons & growing up has happened, hence prison may not be the best place for her, etc etc.

Just noting out loud I guess - big difference between what was requested by the crown, and the actual sentence handed down.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
702
Points
940
That’s quite the sentence the crown had argued for. And while I personally wouldn’t go that far, I’m in no way suggesting that request isn’t without merit.

But “up to 30 days in jail” is quite the leniency compared to what the crown had asked for.

Was the crown being unreasonable in the request? Were they asking for significantly more than they knew they would get, to try to maximize what they actually would get?

Obviously time has passed, massive blocks to many potential careers, no intend to harm (although under the circumstances, damn lucky), life lessons & growing up has happened, hence prison may not be the best place for her, etc etc.

Just noting out loud I guess - big difference between what was requested by the crown, and the actual sentence handed down.
Judge may of factored her current mental health vs the impact of long term incarceration might have on it.
 
Top