Operation HONOUR discussion

[Blackadder1916]

. . .

If we are putting them in prison as a way to punish them, or if they are too dangerous to release, fine. But using the Federal prison system as a way to integrate released service members back into civilian life makes no sense to me, at all. There are programs to do that, if people avail themselves of them.

I don't know when that Note to 104.04 was added; I don't remember it as existing way back in the dark ages when I had a slim (very, very slim) professional connection to 14 CFSPDB.  I speculate that it was added more because the CF was unable (or unwilling) to provide equivalent "retraining and rehabilitation" programs (even if civilian institutions do a poor job of proving such)**.  Though there appears to have been a few "prisoners" being housed at the SPDB in recent years and the CFPM's annual reports indicates that "quality rehabilitation and development services to inmates serving sentences ranging from 15 days of detention to two years less a day of imprisonment" are available, an inmate population of "19 detainees and 4 prisoners" (such as the total for 2016) isn't much of a critical mass on which to establish comprehensive and continuing services.

There may have been some objections or legal challenges pertaining to service imprisonment (however. unable to find any in a cursory search) but the prospect of spending two years less a day at "Club Ed" may not appeal to some who know they are to be booted especially if their family (if any) will likely remain in province of current residence while the prisoner is whisked off to Alberta.


**  It was the problems with providing specialized rehabilitation services to "prisoners" who were waiting out their time of completed appeals and transfer to civilian pens that I remember most about my professional connection to 14 CFSPDB, but that was over 30 years ago and undoubtedly they do a better job of it now. 

 

[daftandbarmy]

A Toronto-based member of the Armed Forces reserves has been charged with two counts of sexual assault under the Criminal Code and a related offence under the National Defence Act for alleged incidents at CFB Esquimalt’s Naval Fleet School.

The National Defence Act charge is for behaving in a disgraceful manner.

The charges, stemming from the summer of 2017, have been laid against Navy Lt. Ronald Clancy, who is in the reserves with HMCS York.

The case is proceeding toward a possible court-martial date.

“All members of the Canadian Armed Forces — whether they are part of the reserve force of regular force — should expect to serve in a respectful and professional environment safe from harmful and inappropriate sexual behaviour,” said Lt.-Col. Kevin Cadman, commanding officer of the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service.

https://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/member-of-armed-forces-reserves-faces-sexual-assault-charges-1.23417904

 

[211RadOp]

The Whig-Standard

Published on: December 13, 2018 | Last Updated: December 13, 2018 11:20 AM EST

A cadet from Royal Military College has been charged by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service following an investigation into a sexual assault that they say occurred last spring on the peninsula.

CFNIS said in a news release that the incident was reported to have occurred last April against another member of the Canadian Forces at the college.

Officer cadet Tyler Johnston has been charged with a single count of sexual assault under the Criminal Code of Canada...

More at link

https://www.thewhig.com/news/local-news/canadian-forces-national-investigation-service-charges-rmc-cadet-in-kingston

 

[kratz]

Reference: Operation HONOUR

If our CAF is truely equal...this charge sadly shines a hole.

DND News Release

Sexual assault charge laid against military member of the Cape Breton Highlanders, NS.

News release
June 27, 2019 – Ottawa – National Defence/Canadian Armed Forces

On 25 June 2019, the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS) charged a member of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) with sexual assault under the Criminal Code of Canada (CCC) pursuant to the National Defence Act (NDA). The charge is in response to an incident which was reported to the Military Police Unit in Halifax, NS, and involves another military member.

Corporal Kendra L. Christmas, a Primary Reserve Force member with the Cape Breton Highlanders faces the following charges.

One (1) count of Sexual Assault contrary to section 271(b) of the CCC pursuant to the NDA.
One (1) count of drunkenness punishable under Section 97 of the NDA.
The matter is now proceeding through military justice system for possible court martial at a date and location to be determined

Quotes
“This investigation resulting in charges demonstrates our commitment to ensure all individuals involved in such criminal activity are brought to justice.” 
Lieutenant-Colonel Kevin Cadman, Commanding Officer, Canadian Forces National Investigation Service

Quick facts
In all cases, the subject of charges is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The matter is now proceeding through military justice system for possible court martial at a date and location to be determined.

The CFNIS is a specialized unit established within Canadian Forces Military Police Group (CFMP Gp). Its primary mandate is to investigate serious and sensitive matters in relation to Department of National Defence (DND) property, DND employees and CAF personnel serving in Canada and around the world. The CFMP Gp and the CFNIS conduct police investigations independently, without interference and in accordance with the highest professional standards.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Reference: Operation HONOUR

If our CAF is truely equal...this charge sadly shines a hole.

DND News Release

And from the Cape Breton Post:

https://www.capebretonpost.com/news/local/sexual-assault-charge-laid-against-cape-breton-highlanders-member-327352/

 

[BeyondTheNow]

Reference: Operation HONOUR

If our CAF is truely equal...this charge sadly shines a hole.

DND News Release

Sorry, please clarify. I don’t understand the context/intent of “...if truly equal...shines a hole.”

I read that a female mbr is facing charges for contraventions relating to Op HONOUR and drunkenness.

I’ve personally witnessed females sexually harassing, and worse, their male counterparts. While the percentage (of reported and otherwise) incidents with females being the aggressors are decidedly fewer, it indeed happens and they should be held to account also. I’m not sure what I’m missing here...

 

[kratz]

BeyondTheNow,

No worries for calling me out.

Op HONOUR's official statistics ect... have been skewed to represent a one-sided narrative.

To hear of a "rare" female charge really is news.

 

[BeyondTheNow]

BeyondTheNow,

No worries for calling me out.

Op HONOUR's official statistics ect... have been skewed to represent a one-sided narrative.

To hear of a "rare" female charge really is news.

No honestly, I thought I was completely missing something. I wasn’t intending “to call anyone out”...

But yea, I think it’s important to know that females are being held responsible for unacceptable behaviour also.

 

[garb811]

BeyondTheNow,

No worries for calling me out.

Op HONOUR's official statistics ect... have been skewed to represent a one-sided narrative.

To hear of a "rare" female charge really is news.

What stats, exactly, do you think are being skewed to present a "one-sided narrative"?

 

[RCDtpr]

What stats, exactly, do you think are being skewed to present a "one-sided narrative"?

I was an MP before and after the implementation of OP Honour.  I can say with 100% certainty that post OP Honour, charges were laid on a LOT of files that would not of even been investigated pre.

Wanna guess how many of those charges resulted in convictions?

I’m not saying there’s a “narrative” but as a senior member of the branch you know good and well that “stats” are definitely up since OP Honour came to be.....convictions on the other hand.....

 

[daftandbarmy]

I was an MP before and after the implementation of OP Honour.  I can say with 100% certainty that post OP Honour, charges were laid on a LOT of files that would not of even been investigated pre.

Wanna guess how many of those charges resulted in convictions?

I’m not saying there’s a “narrative” but as a senior member of the branch you know good and well that “stats” are definitely up since OP Honour came to be.....convictions on the other hand.....

And the real deterrent to criminal activity, since antiquity, is a conviction that can stand up to any appeal process, right?

 

[RCDtpr]

And the real deterrent to criminal activity, since antiquity, is a conviction that can stand up to any appeal process, right?

Charging someone for the sake of optics with no prospect of conviction isn’t exactly an effective solution either.

 

[Haggis]

Charging someone for the sake of optics with no prospect of conviction isn’t exactly an effective solution either.

Ask VAdm Norman how that political process works.

 

[cld617]

And the real deterrent to criminal activity, since antiquity, is a conviction that can stand up to any appeal process, right?

I would say no, as we already know that increasing the severity of punishment has little to no effect to act successfully as a deterrent. The risk of consequence is effective in a comparison between potential consequence and none, but increasing the likelihood of that consequence a marginal amount is no different than increasing the length of a prison sentence on crime.

 

[garb811]

I was an MP before and after the implementation of OP Honour.  I can say with 100% certainty that post OP Honour, charges were laid on a LOT of files that would not of even been investigated pre.

Wanna guess how many of those charges resulted in convictions?

I’m not saying there’s a “narrative” but as a senior member of the branch you know good and well that “stats” are definitely up since OP Honour came to be.....convictions on the other hand.....

Charging someone for the sake of optics with no prospect of conviction isn’t exactly an effective solution either.

It isn't our job to decide to lay charges based on what has a reasonable prospect of conviction or not, the decision to prosecute test lies with the prosecutor, not the police. Your statements do a disservice to the folks out there who are doing these investigations on a daily basis by implying they are laying charges simply to drive up stats.

Of course we are investigating things that wouldn't have been investigated before, that tends to happen when our boss issues direction that ALL sexual assault complaints will be fully investigated. That direction predates Op HONOUR by the way... The increase in files is also a result of increased awareness at all levels of the need to actually report sexual assaults when they are disclosed and, hopefully, by an increase in the confidence of the victims that their complaints will be investigated thoroughly instead of being swept under the rug. It stands to reason that as a result of that, more charges are being laid because like it or not, there had been a tendency in the past for unqualified people at the lower levels to make off the cuff decisions on what warranted an investigation or not simply based on their initial perception of the information being provided by the complainant.

Unlike you, I don't believe the conviction rate has had any perceptible change as a result of the charges being laid lacking substance. I also don't think there has been an overly large increase in the number of charges being laid and taken to Courts Martial; if there was, the RMP and Military Judges would be a hell of a lot busier than they are when you take into account the number of sexual assault files that are done on a yearly basis.

But in any case, this still doesn't speak to what stats are supposedly being skewed to provide a one sided narrative based off of a news story about a female service member being charged.

 

[brihard]

It isn't our job to decide to lay charges based on what has a reasonable prospect of conviction or not, the decision to prosecute test lies with the prosecutor, not the police. Your statements do a disservice to the folks out there who are doing these investigations on a daily basis by implying they are laying charges simply to drive up stats.

Question, do MPs have to get charge approval from a prosecutor? I know within my organization we ourselves do charge- or more properly, our court liaison officer - another cop - swears the information that signifies the laying of the charge. But crown generally never sees it (on routine criminal files) before a charge is laid. It's different in B.C., but in much of the country we do charge, and generally it's understood that you aren't going to lay a charge unless the file stands a reasonable chance to the best of your / your supervisor's estimation.

 

[garb811]

Question, do MPs have to get charge approval from a prosecutor? I know within my organization we ourselves do charge- or more properly, our court liaison officer - another cop - swears the information that signifies the laying of the charge. But crown generally never sees it (on routine criminal files) before a charge is laid. It's different in B.C., but in much of the country we do charge, and generally it's understood that you aren't going to lay a charge unless the file stands a reasonable chance to the best of your / your supervisor's estimation.

Errrffff...that depends is the simple answer, lol.

For CSD offences, the only MP authorized to lay charges are those posted to CFNIS, and those are reviewed by RMP prior to them being laid I believe. The rest have to send the report to the member's chain of command and cross their fingers... In some cases, those reports are reviewed by a run of the mill AJAG member prior to being sent to the unit in an effort to increase the likelihood of a charge actually being laid by having a pre-emptive, albeit informal, pre-charge screening done to try to make sure nothing was missed.

For Criminal Code charges downtown, it depends on the province, just as with RCMP.

 

[RCDtpr]

It isn't our job to decide to lay charges based on what has a reasonable prospect of conviction or not, the decision to prosecute test lies with the prosecutor, not the police. Your statements do a disservice to the folks out there who are doing these investigations on a daily basis by implying they are laying charges simply to drive up stats.

Of course we are investigating things that wouldn't have been investigated before, that tends to happen when our boss issues direction that ALL sexual assault complaints will be fully investigated. That direction predates Op HONOUR by the way... The increase in files is also a result of increased awareness at all levels of the need to actually report sexual assaults when they are disclosed and, hopefully, by an increase in the confidence of the victims that their complaints will be investigated thoroughly instead of being swept under the rug. It stands to reason that as a result of that, more charges are being laid because like it or not, there had been a tendency in the past for unqualified people at the lower levels to make off the cuff decisions on what warranted an investigation or not simply based on their initial perception of the information being provided by the complainant.

Unlike you, I don't believe the conviction rate has had any perceptible change as a result of the charges being laid lacking substance. I also don't think there has been an overly large increase in the number of charges being laid and taken to Courts Martial; if there was, the RMP and Military Judges would be a hell of a lot busier than they are when you take into account the number of sexual assault files that are done on a yearly basis.

But in any case, this still doesn't speak to what stats are supposedly being skewed to provide a one sided narrative based off of a news story about a female service member being charged.

To answer the stats question....I’d argue the direction from Delaney that no sexual assault files are ever to be classed as “unfounded” in SAMPIS even if they were unfounded would be an example...

 

[garb811]

To answer the stats question....I’d argue the direction from Delaney that no sexual assault files are ever to be classed as “unfounded” in SAMPIS even if they were unfounded would be an example...

I don't recall direction prohibiting the use of unfounded WRT sexual assault files, I do recall the direction that the default is to be that the complaint is founded.  If you look at CCJS, that is fully in line with their definition:

An incident is founded if, after police investigation, it has been determined that the reported offence did occur or was attempted (even if the charged/suspect chargeable (CSC) is unknown) or there is no credible evidence to confirm that the reported incident did not take place (my emphasis). This includes third party reports that fit these criteria.

In other words, even for non-sexual assaults, we "believe" the person reporting the incident and work from the point of view it occurred unless we can conclusively prove it didn't. As such, the use of the unfounded flag should be pretty rare, unless you believe people are in the habit of making false reports on anything and everything.

Let's be honest, SAMPIS is a train wreck WRT CCJS coding and way too much stuff is/was being improperly cleared and flagged as "Unfounded" as the default, including when charges have been laid/recommended because a lot of supervisors don't really seem to know what they are supposed to be doing to properly clear a file.

 

[RCDtpr]

I don't recall direction prohibiting the use of unfounded WRT sexual assault files, I do recall the direction that the default is to be that the complaint is founded.  If you look at CCJS, that is fully in line with their definition:
In other words, even for non-sexual assaults, we "believe" the person reporting the incident and work from the point of view it occurred unless we can conclusively prove it didn't. As such, the use of the unfounded flag should be pretty rare, unless you believe people are in the habit of making false reports on anything and everything.

Let's be honest, SAMPIS is a train wreck WRT CCJS coding and way too much stuff is/was being improperly cleared and flagged as "Unfounded" as the default, including when charges have been laid/recommended because a lot of supervisors don't really seem to know what they are supposed to be doing to properly clear a file.

I completely agree that SAMPIS can be a disaster wrt to that.  Having said that, the direction my office received “from the PM” was any and all sexual misconduct related files SHALL not be classed as unfounded for ANY reason.

One particular file the complainant admitted they lied about the entire incident after doing an investigation and I was still directed that the complaint will not go as unfounded based on his order.

Whether that order was misconstrued by the office Capt......that I don’t know.