NDA reference

[Tibbson]

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

 

[SupersonicMax]

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

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

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Max,

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

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

Can we frickin move on?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Max,

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

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

Can we frickin move on?

Not until you provide the reference!

NO WIKIPEDIA!  ;D

 

[FJAG]

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

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

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

:cheers:

 

[dimsum]

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

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

:cheers:

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

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

 

[Pusser]

Can someone tell me where it says we have to:

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Eye In The Sky]

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

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

:facepalm:

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

:facepalm:

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

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

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

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

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

:rofl:

 

[dapaterson]

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

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

 

[Tibbson]

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

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

 

[Mick]

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

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

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

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

 

[Loachman]

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

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

 

[FJAG]

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

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

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

:cheers:

 

[dapaterson]

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

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

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

:cheers:

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

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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

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

 

[FJAG]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:cheers:

 

[dapaterson]

FJAG,

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

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