Sexual Assault & Sexual Misconduct in the CF

[captloadie]

The question that needs to be asked of the new law is does it give civilian policing authorities jurisdiction on DND properties? If so, then there should be no issues on where the assaults happen. Where we the CAF might have to figure things out is where the decision not to lay charges is made by prosecutors. Do we then lay charges under the NDA that are not also a ccc charge.

 

[brihard]

The question that needs to be asked of the new law is does it give civilian policing authorities jurisdiction on DND properties? If so, then there should be no issues on where the assaults happen. Where we the CAF might have to figure things out is where the decision not to lay charges is made by prosecutors. Do we then lay charges under the NDA that are not also a ccc charge.

We already have legal authority to investigate and charge criminal offences on DND property. There’s no special legal privilege that attaches itself to the federal/DND ownership of property. The only such privileges I’m aware of pertaining to to certain properties associated with foreign missions or organizations that are protected by the Vienna convention or similar agreements.

Now there are practicalities in entering DND property for purpose of a criminal investigation, but that’s a matter of security and access considerations.

However in terms of who provides the policing services, that’s quite a bit more nebulous and seems based more on conventions, understandings, and agreements. I donmt know how this plays out if the situation I hypothesized happens tomorrow, which it easily could.

 

[Booter]

Yeah it may be a local knowledge switch but I’ve done investigations on bases without an issue. They just gave me an MP who kept me company.

There is a billing thing that will be addressed between the government and the municipality on services. This will be a very small adjustment to that.

 

[brihard]

Yeah it may be a local knowledge switch but I’ve done investigations on bases without an issue. They just gave me an MP who kept me company.

There is a billing thing that will be addressed between the government and the municipality on services. This will be a very small adjustment to that.

There’s no way the call volume from these offences currently investigated by the MPs is actually enough to cause real issues for any civilian police service.

 

[QV]

There’s no way the call volume from these offences currently investigated by the MPs is actually enough to cause real issues for any civilian police service.

I guess there will be a struggle at first where the CAF deems unacceptable conduct of a sexual nature vs what is a criminal offence. So, some files might get kicked back and forth until that understanding is settled - but I've been out of the game a long time now and maybe that is already understood.

 

[brihard]

I guess there will be a struggle at first where the CAF deems unacceptable conduct of a sexual nature vs what is a criminal offence. So, some files might get kicked back and forth until that understanding is settled - but I've been out of the game a long time now and maybe that is already understood.

Not a matter of kicking it back and forth even. Civilian police will assess the complaint and investigate if there’s criminality. If not, it’s done.

If CAF wants to do its own internal disciplinary investigation they can have at ‘er. They might even make a case that because CSD is still statutory they may be able to request police info for sharing under existing law enforcement authorities. Info gets shared for administrative and regulatory stuff frequently enough.

 

[Haggis]

There’s no way the call volume from these offences currently investigated by the MPs is actually enough to cause real issues for any civilian police service.

I suspect there may be a small increase in complaints from victims who have not spoken up in the past as they either do not trust the MP/CFNIS to do a "proper job" or have seen/heard bad experiences with other complainants and the MP/CFNIS and CAF CofC.

 

[QV]

Not a matter of kicking it back and forth even. Civilian police will assess the complaint and investigate if there’s criminality. If not, it’s done.

If CAF wants to do its own internal disciplinary investigation they can have at ‘er. They might even make a case that because CSD is still statutory they may be able to request police info for sharing under existing law enforcement authorities. Info gets shared for administrative and regulatory stuff frequently enough.

Pretty much what I meant. CAF refers file, no crime or case dropped, CAF then proceeds by way of CSD... and I guess there could be a big time gap from reporting to an eventual CSD if they hold off while criminal investigation/court is pending...

 

[PPCLI Guy]

The question that needs to be asked of the new law is does it give civilian policing authorities jurisdiction on DND properties? If so, then there should be no issues on where the assaults happen. Where we the CAF might have to figure things out is where the decision not to lay charges is made by prosecutors. Do we then lay charges under the NDA that are not also a ccc charge.

Hmm. Is that not a form of double jepardy?

 

[dapaterson]

Hmm. Is that not a form of double jepardy?

As I understand it, double jeopardy would attach if criminal charges were laid, a finding of not guilty, and a CSD charge was then laid for arguably the same facts.

That said, a summary proceeding based on the same facts might not get caught as double jeopardy, since the system is quasi-judicial at best, and participants in it do not have any significant legal training.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Not a matter of kicking it back and forth even. Civilian police will assess the complaint and investigate if there’s criminality. If not, it’s done.

If CAF wants to do its own internal disciplinary investigation they can have at ‘er.

I'm curious how that would look.

18 year old civilian cleaner tries to make a complaint to military police police about dirtbag NCO making sexual advances, "accidental" pictures which she deleted, and sexual comments. MP stop her before hearing the complaint and send her to civilian police due to C-11. She complains to civilian police and they decline to investigate.

The civilian police aren't going to inform the NCO's chain of command.

If the civilian tells her supervisor who informs the NCOs chain of command, would the NCOs unit conduct a UDI? I wouldn't expect the JAG would support WO so and so conducting a UDI for sexual misconduct when MP aren't allowed to do so, and civilian police turned it down.


On the other hand maybe unit NCOs and officers conducting UDIs for sexual misconduct will be the loop hole to investigate this stuff.

 

[PuckChaser]

On the other hand maybe unit NCOs and officers conducting UDIs for sexual misconduct will be the loop hole to investigate this stuff.

I honestly don't think anyone in government has thought this through. Blindly following the Arbour report.

The answer is not using UDIs for this kind of thing. If trained supposed police officers in NIS and MPs cannot figure it out, we're going to have Warrant Officers who get a 2 period class on UDIs on ILP working through a complex sexual misconduct file?

 

[PPCLI Guy]

As I understand it, double jeopardy would attach if criminal charges were laid, a finding of not guilty, and a CSD charge was then laid for arguably the same facts.

That said, a summary proceeding based on the same facts might not get caught as double jeopardy, since the system is quasi-judicial at best, and participants in it do not have any significant legal training.

I think I meant morally rather than legally....

 

[Eaglelord17]

Personally I think taking the MPs out of it is a huge mistake. Having dealt with them I think they were the best officers a member could have in their corner.

From people I know civvy side who have dealt with regular police, it is a real crap shoot as to the quality of investigation received.