J
jollyjacktar
Guest
FFS, what is with some people. 
- Status
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 10
This article + your profile picture :-X
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Not sure but is it normal for MP's to search a home that is in a city with their own police force and RCMP?
F
fraserdw
Guest
Shilo was always a dull place to be a young soldier!
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
This guy lives in Brandon where there is plenty to do.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Brandon is 28 km away in the second largest city of MB. They don't have jurisdiction not under normal circumstances at least. I'll go back to my lane now.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 210
Lone Wolf AT said:
It can depend on a number of factors such as where the offence was committed, who it was reported to (it was a cyber crime after all... who has primary jurisdiction on the internet?) Military Police often get called by civilians anytime a service member has committed an offence, regardless of primary jurisdiction. There is a military nexus as the alleged offender is a service member, subject to the NDA 24/7.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Appreciate the insight.
- Reaction score
- 4,267
- Points
- 1,260
A reminder....
Under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, "any person charged with an offence has the right .... to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal"
- Reaction score
- 12
- Points
- 530
I think that's pretty remote JesseWZ. We rarely, if ever, assume jurisdiction based solely on the offender being a member of the CF, unless there are pre-existing agreements for very low level offences.
This particular article does raise a couple of questions that make me wonder if it was, indeed, MP who carried out the search warrant though, not the least of which is the RCMP doing the news release.
This particular article does raise a couple of questions that make me wonder if it was, indeed, MP who carried out the search warrant though, not the least of which is the RCMP doing the news release.
- Reaction score
- 27,527
- Points
- 1,090
JesseWZ said:
Not all service members are subject to the NDA 24/7.
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
Tell you what pal, when you've had some T.I. here and know me some, then you can take the piss. Till then...SharkmanSIX said:
- Reaction score
- 1,476
- Points
- 1,040
dapaterson said:
True:
Assuming that the accused is a member of the regular force, then he or she would be 24/7 subject to the code.
Eeep! Edit to add source here:
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-5/page-19.html#h-38NDA
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
milnews.ca said:
In addition to that just a gentle reminder that this case may attract a lot of attention from the media and public and that usually leads to them showing up here looking for quotes etc. Be very careful of what you post. As of now this thread will be closely moderated. STAFF
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 13,784
- Points
- 1,160
JesseWZ said:
I think the 24/7 rule merely means that the member (assuming he's Reg F or a Class B or C reservist) is subject to the Code of Service Discipline. It does not establish a military nexus.
Military nexus is/was a legal doctrine requiring that in order for a military court to have jurisdiction to try an offender the offence had to have a real service connection. The principle has changed over the last four decades as the laws changed. There is a good and fairly recent analysis of the law delivered by Justice Letourneau of the CMAC to Yale in 2011 at this link http://www.law.yale.edu/The_Status_of_the_Military_Nexus_Doctrine_in_Canada.pdf
In short the civilian and military courts have concurrent jurisdiction and the doctrine of military nexus may no longer apply. The court clearly recognized that by being tried by court martial, an accused can lose certain fundamental rights which he would not lose if tried by a civilian court. These are systemic issues and I won't go through them here but Letourneau does a pretty good job of summarizing them in his paper.
I'm not generally a fan of Letourneau. I don't agree with a lot of his judgements but in this case I tend to be on his side when he says "That being said, since military and civilian courts have concurrent jurisdiction over ordinary criminal law offences, how should it be determined which court should exercise it in a given case? A reasonable observer, well informed, would be justified in asking the following questions. Why should a soldier charged with a serious ordinary criminal law offence, committed entirely in civilian-like circumstances, be deprived of his constitutional right to a jury trial as well as the substantive and procedural rights given to a civilian before civilian courts? Merely because he is a soldier? Since he risks his life for our collective benefit, should he not be entitled to, if not a better, at least an equal treatment before and under the law? Should not the rule under the Constitution be equal justice for one and for all rather than equal justice for all except for one who is a soldier?"
The news article is light on facts but it appears this individual may have during his off duty time attempted to aid or abet another civilian to commit bestiality (incidentally its bestiality in the CCC not beastality). There may also have been pornographic material on his civilian computer located at his home in Brandon.
In those circumstances (if in fact they are correct) I would think that the more appropriate investigators should be the Brandon Police Service and the local provincial courts should try the case.
By the way I've lived over thirty years in total in Brandon and Shilo and there certainly are other things to do there. On the other hand I left there six years ago because I just couldn't handle the nine months of sub zero snow and icy winds followed by three months of mosquitoes.
- Status
Similar threads
