- Reaction score
I'm not privy to any of the background to this but I do note that the report was an "Interim Report" and that there appears to be a claim of "Solicitor and Client Privilege". Both are, in my view, valid reason's to keep the report confidential at this time.
This type of report does not come from the prosecuting or defence arm of the branch but from the Director of Law/Military Justice Strategic with possible support from the Director of Law/Military Justice Policy Directorate (The organization has changed somewhat since my days when it was the Director of Law/Military Justice Policy and Research and I'm not sure if DLaw/MJP would be involved until the report is final) As such, DLaw/MJS is providing legal analysis and advice to the CF and DND. Such advice and accordingly, the report is considered protected by solicitor/client privilege and the Office of the JAG has a duty to protect it from disclosure. At some point in the future, once the report is final and advice is tendered to DND as to a recommended course of action, the MND (and not JAG) would have the option as to whether to release the advice/report or claim it exempt from disclosure under s 23 of the ATI.
I think we are once again seeing a mountain being made into a molehill for pure outrage effect.