Sexual Assault & Sexual Misconduct in the CF

[mariomike]

Apr 27, 2017

OTTAWA – A former officer stationed at Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt in British Columbia has been charged with sexual assault.

National Defence says in a news release that the assault was alleged to have occurred against another military employee in 2010.
http://www.680news.com/2017/04/27/former-military-officer-charged-with-sexual-assault-in-british-columbia/

Apr 28, 2017

Forces say they want to oust 77 members for sexual misconduct
http://www.680news.com/2017/04/28/forces-say-want-oust-77-members-sexual-misconduct/
Officials also say military police plan to review more than 150 old cases of sexual misconduct reported between 2010 and 2016 but deemed unfounded.
That includes having experts from outside the military, including social workers and others, look at the files and meet victims.

 

[McG]

In the news now, LCol Stalker is suing the NIS.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/military-officer-taking-legal-action-against-dnd-over-sex-assault-investigation-1.3400629

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Not drawing conclusions one way or another but I'm glad he beat it and I hope he wins his lawsuit against DND and NIS.

 

[Jarnhamar]

That's a double edged sword. More than happy to see guilty members kicked out as I'm sure a number of them have escaped justice so far. That said I can only hope innocent members don't get wrongly punted.

 

[putz]

Not drawing conclusions one way or another but I'm glad he beat it and I hope he wins his lawsuit against DND and NIS.

It is a huge leap befween charges withdrawn and "beating charges" 

 

[Infanteer]

One could also say it is a huge leap between "charged with" and "found guilty of."

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It is a huge leap befween charges withdrawn and "beating charges"

Having been charged so many times I can't count them, I'm well aware of the difference.

I was simply wishing him well.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

That's a double edged sword. More than happy to see guilty members kicked out as I'm sure a number of them have escaped justice so far. That said I can only hope innocent members don't get wrongly punted.

Yup, these things usually turn into " we must find evil even if it's not there"  so they can drag out their employment longer.

 

[Journeyman]

 
Ah yes, no one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Because nothing says "witch hunt" like bringing in outside "experts" to look at closed, unfounded files... and meet alleged  victims.

(yes, 680 News, you missed that word "alleged")  :not-again:

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

 
Ah yes, no one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Because nothing says "witch hunt" like bringing in outside "experts" to look at closed, unfounded files... and meet alleged  victims.

(yes, 680 News, you missed that word "alleged")  :not-again:

Since when do social workers get to look at police investigations?

 

[RedcapCrusader]

Since when do social workers get to look at police investigations?

Since conducting an external review.

 

[Gunner98]

Since when do social workers get to look at police investigations?

More often than you would think!  Child abuse, domestic abuse, rape crisis teams and hospital support teams normally consist of police and social worker partnership. http://wawg.ca/system/assets/attachments/000/000/173/original/Sexual_Assault_Protocol_Final_June_2014.pdf
http://www.edmontonpolice.ca/CommunityPolicing/FamilyProtection/ChildProtection/CARRT.aspx

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Since conducting an external review.

An external review would be having the RCMP/OPP/TPS/OPS/etc... Come look at the files they investigated.

This is the NIS reopening files they already investigated (guess they didn't do a good job the first time) and then letting non law enforcement types look at all their investigative work, as if those non law-enforcement types have any expertise in investigations.  An I missing something here?  :dunno:

More often than you would think!  Child abuse, domestic abuse, rape crisis teams and hospital support teams normally consist of police and social worker partnership. http://wawg.ca/system/assets/attachments/000/000/173/original/Sexual_Assault_Protocol_Final_June_2014.pdf
http://www.edmontonpolice.ca/CommunityPolicing/FamilyProtection/ChildProtection/CARRT.aspx

Thanks Simian,

I'm aware of the role hospitals and health professionals play but they don't conduct investigations, that's a law enforcement responsibility.

 

[Gunner98]

HB,

Non-law enforcement types have experience in lots of investigations - sex misconduct assault/abuse, child abuse, domestic abuse.  Their investigations result in child custody hearings, restraining orders, etc.  So I think the experienced non-law enforcement types have some good investigative skills.  They would not be looking at police misconduct in the cases, they are looking at the evidence of sex assault/misconduct.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

HB,

Non-law enforcement types have experience in lots of investigations - sex misconduct assault/abuse, child abuse, domestic abuse.  Their investigations result in child custody hearings, restraining orders, etc.  So I think the experienced non-law enforcement types have some good investigative skills.  They would not be looking at police misconduct in the cases, they are looking at the evidence of sex assault/misconduct.

Part in yellow, two very different things.  One is a criminal act, the other is a cultural perception.  The words should not be used interchangeably, even though it has become the modus operandi over the past few years.

 

[Journeyman]

They would not be looking at police misconduct in the cases, they are looking at the evidence of sex assault/misconduct.

Sorry, but I have heartache with this.  Bringing in non-police people to go through already conducted criminal allegations deemed 'unfounded' says two things:

1)  NIS investigative skills are  lacking;  and/or

2)  We're going to bring in whoever we want, for as long as it takes, to find "the answer" we need to appease the Toronto Star, et al.

Both of which are troubling.

 

[ModlrMike]

What happens then when someone exonerated by the police, gets found guilty by the consultants?

 

[JesseWZ]

What happens then when someone exonerated by the police, gets found guilty by the consultants?

That's a complicated question, but not necessarily the right one. As we've discovered with other agencies, some of the unfounded allegations are most likely a clerical error when we conclude our files. Unfounded was used a lot when not enough evidence existed to charge someone. On the face of it, if there isn't enough evidence for an arrest or charges to proceed, doesn't make it unfounded. I'm sure the review will find one of several things:

1) unfounded was mistakenly applied (it's literally a drop down box where you tick off a letter to indicate the status and that box is what is used to generate stats) and it's actually founded but not enough evidence was uncovered to support charges;

2) it actually was unfounded (completely unfounded cases are pretty rare - typically evidence would be uncovered of some sort of maliciousness on the part of the complainant); and

3) some files marked unfounded may need to be re-opened as further investigative steps or new policing procedures or techniques may benefit the case. If that's the case, I imagine the case would be re-opened by the agency of jurisdiction (almost certainly the CFNIS) and they would evaluate the (new- if any) evidence and decide whether they've met the reasonable grounds to believe standard to move forward.

Crown counsel has a higher threshold to prove however - and at least here in BC could decline to approve charges (it's pre-charge approval in BC folks, for those that know what I'm talking about) for one of the following reasons:

a) no reasonable prospect of conviction; and

b) no public interest in pursuing charges.

A lot of police files with substantial evidence don't make it past reason (a).

So I think the question you should be asking Mike is: "What happens when the consultants uncover an investigation that was incomplete or subject to the techniques of the time and now evidence has been uncovered that could (much later down the road) lead to a conviction"? 

 

[TCM621]

That's a complicated question, but not necessarily the right one. As we've discovered with other agencies, some of the unfounded allegations are most likely a clerical error when we conclude our files. Unfounded was used a lot when not enough evidence existed to charge someone. On the face of it, if there isn't enough evidence for an arrest or charges to proceed, doesn't make it unfounded. I'm sure the review will find one of several things:

1) unfounded was mistakenly applied (it's literally a drop down box where you tick off a letter to indicate the status and that box is what is used to generate stats) and it's actually founded but not enough evidence was uncovered to support charges;

2) it actually was unfounded (completely unfounded cases are pretty rare - typically evidence would be uncovered of some sort of maliciousness on the part of the complainant); and

3) some files marked unfounded may need to be re-opened as further investigative steps or new policing procedures or techniques may benefit the case. If that's the case, I imagine the case would be re-opened by the agency of jurisdiction (almost certainly the CFNIS) and they would evaluate the (new- if any) evidence and decide whether they've met the reasonable grounds to believe standard to move forward.

Crown counsel has a higher threshold to prove however - and at least here in BC could decline to approve charges (it's pre-charge approval in BC folks, for those that know what I'm talking about) for one of the following reasons:

a) no reasonable prospect of conviction; and

b) no public interest in pursuing charges.

A lot of police files with substantial evidence don't make it past reason (a).

So I think the question you should be asking Mike is: "What happens when the consultants uncover an investigation that was incomplete or subject to the techniques of the time and now evidence has been uncovered that could (much later down the road) lead to a conviction"? 

How far back are we going? While rape has always been rape, an infantry Sgt in 1985 would have a much different understanding of acceptable behaviour than a social worker from 2017.  I remember taking SHARP circa 1998 and realizing what I thought was normal at the time was considered harassment. I thought it was just how the infantry was because it was completely normal from my frame of reference. A lot has changed since those days. I haven't had a drill cane swung in my direction in decades.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

 

[JesseWZ]

While there is no statute of limitations for sexual assault, investigations have to use the legal standard of the time. For example, an incident that took place in 1985, would need to use the 1985 Criminal Code as a benchmark. It's also important to note, if it's a CFNIS investigation, it's typically not a "sexual harassment" issue but a sexual assault/abuse issue. Harassment is still dealt with at the local unit level or if it involves Criminal harassment, by the applicable police service of jurisdiction.