Quirky said:This occurred in 2014 yet only convicted now? If the prosecution had no evidence or witnesses then why the guilty plea?
As PC said, he pled guilty and there was a joint sentencing recommendation on accessing the pornography. As a result of that, there would be an agreed statement of facts entered into the proceedings, and there is no requirement for either side to tender further evidence or call witnesses; both sides have already agreed to what has been presented to the court. It doesn't mean the prosecution had nothing, in fact it actually implies it was sufficient the defence felt the best recourse was to do a deal.Quirky said:This occurred in 2014 yet only convicted now? If the prosecution had no evidence or witnesses then why the guilty plea?
dapaterson said:Surprised he pleaded at all. One would think that R v Jordan would have seen this tossed. Four years to investigate a relatively simple situation, lay charges and proceed would seem to be outside the acceptable window.
Haggis said:Indeed it would, unless some of the delays were due to circumstances brought on by the accused.
dapaterson said:Surprised he pleaded at all. One would think that R v Jordan would have seen this tossed. Four years to investigate a relatively simple situation, lay charges and proceed would seem to be outside the acceptable window.
It would be interesting to see the timeline for case, and it will interesting to see the ruling, once posted.
On November 9, 2016, the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service charged a military member of 5th Canadian Division Support Group with two counts under the National Defence Act in relation to accessing child pornography.
The charges relate to reported accessing of child pornography while the accused was on duty at 5th Canadian Division Support Base Gagetown between June 26, 2014 and September 22, 2014.
Sergeant Brent Douglas Hansen faces the following charges:
one count of Accessing Child Pornography under section 163.1(4.1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, punishable under section 130 of the National Defence Act; and
one count of Conduct to the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline, punishable under section 129 of the National Defence Act.
WEng87 said:Completely off topic... But my god that Defense Lawyer has one terrible beard!! I know a few Coxswain's that would lose their minds over someone considering that a "Beard". :rofl:
SeaKingTacco said:Proof that any thread on army.ca can be turned into a dress thread...
dapaterson said:Surprised he pleaded at all. One would think that R v Jordan would have seen this tossed. Four years to investigate a relatively simple situation, lay charges and proceed would seem to be outside the acceptable window.
It would be interesting to see the timeline for case, and it will interesting to see the ruling, once posted.
WEng87 said:Completely off topic... But my god that Defense Lawyer has one terrible beard!! I know a few Coxswain's that would lose their minds over someone considering that a "Beard". :rofl:
WEng87 said:Completely off topic... But my god that Defense Lawyer has one terrible beard!! I know a few Coxswain's that would lose their minds over someone considering that a "Beard". :rofl: