- Reaction score
- 4,709
- Points
- 1,160
From the Ontario Attorney General:
So no, you can't just blow off a ticket and it goes away.
So no, you can't just blow off a ticket and it goes away.
- Reaction score
- 6,080
- Points
- 1,160
OK, we're going to wait until the situation clarifies itself a bit. If there is something earth shattering or worthy of update, contact a Mod to have it included.
---Staff---
---Staff---
- Reaction score
- 4,266
- Points
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 4,266
- Points
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 4,266
- Points
- 1,260
So he should just wing it off the top of his head?tomahawk6 said:
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 13,781
- Points
- 1,160
tomahawk6 said:
That comment is a complete miss.
The fact of the matter is that almost every country has it's own military justice system many of which vary widely.
Our own system is steeped in the processes from the British system from over a hundred years ago and which has evolved over time. Our two systems now deviate quite widely. Over the last thirty years or so our amendments to the NDA (and especially the courts martial system) have been small incremental changes many (if not most) of which have been in reactive responses to successful Supreme Court challenges and the Somalia Inquiry.
Personally I think it's a great idea to do a comprehensive review of the system. In particular--and IMHO--the current system is overstaffed yet rampant with delay from charge to trial.
I think you fundamentally misunderstand the role of the JAG.
While he is the most senior military legal officer and the advisor on military law to the CDS and the MND, he has the responsibility of supervising a number of fields on military law, specifically military justice, operational law and administrative law. While the JAG is clearly very knowledgeable in military justice, the the true subject matter experts in military justice at any given time are the Director of Military Prosecutions (re prosecution matters), the Director of Defence Counsel Services (re defence counsel matters) and the Deputy Judge Advocate General/Military Justice (re military justice in total. All three are Colonels) and their respective staffs. In addition there is the Chief Military Judge and the Chief Justice of the Court Martial Appeal Court, a fairly robust group of civilian lawyers who practice in the field of military justice and former Supreme Court Justices Brian Dickson and Antonio Lamer (who were involved in reviewing various military justice (and military police) matters some twenty and ten years ago in the post-Somalia era.)
I think your misunderstanding comes from the fact that where the article says "a review" you took it to be "a study". A review serves an entirely different purpose from that of a study. A review looks at the existing situation and then, by way of input from all the proper stakeholders and by comparisons to other existing systems, etc, delivers recommendations to the JAG which, if accepted by him, will then be drafted into to the appropriate legislation and regulations for implementation. DJAG/MJ has been assigned as the Director General of the CM Review Team and the team's terms of reference can be found here: http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-military-law/court-martial-comprehensive-review.page
Again, IMHO, this review is not only a great idea but is long overdue. Rather than being reactive to outside stimuli, it will be proactive in shaping an improved system for the future. Having the DJAG/MJ run the review is entirely appropriate and in keeping with how military justice initiatives are undertaken within the Office of the JAG.
:cheers:
- Reaction score
- 64
- Points
- 530
See that didnt require a review costing hundreds of thousands of dollars and wasting hundreds of man hours in a system that you say is inefficient. Perhaps comparing civilian charging practices to the military one might be the way to go here ?
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-queens-regulations-orders-vol-02/index.page
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-queens-regulations-orders-vol-02/index.page
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 13,781
- Points
- 1,160
tomahawk6 said:
Take my word for it; the issues involved are much more complex than you are giving them credit for.
I have no idea what the review will cost but the key members involved are already on the government payroll and the work they are doing is entirely within their usual scope of work so this is not an incremental cost.
I presume that there will be some costs involved with the consultations but generally the stakeholders usually involved on these types of issues provide their input at no cost.
Is there a cost benefit to this type of review? Who knows. Is there a cost benefit on anything that the military does? I would expect a more efficient system might have some cost benefits in addition to the general benefits received from a better system.
The general civilian charging system does not work in a process that needs to be mobile and work both at home and abroad in an operational context. That said the military justice system has already incorporated many of civilian justice system elements and practices and I'm quite sure would benefit from others. That's what the review is there to look into.
:cheers:
- Reaction score
- 64
- Points
- 530
Very good points FJAG thanks for putting up with my viewpoint.Our system in the US military is more decentralized and at least intially can move pretty quickly.The conviction rate is 90% so I expect thats similar to the CF.Appeals move up the chain of command.Whether deployed or at home there is a JAG presence to help the commander with legal advice.Let me offer an anecdote.
A group of black soldiers threatened a couple of white soldiers while waiting for a bus.Things got heated and a white soldier fired at the black soldiers inflicting minor injuries.The MP's arrested both groups and took them to the stockade.Someone had a sense of humor because the white soldiers were placed in a cell with some of the black soldiers that they had had a tussle with.The Staff Judge Advocate's office assigned lawyers to the soldiers.All the soldiers except a white soldier went with judge only trial option.All were convicted and went to the Disciplinary Barracks at Leavenworth.The white soldier that asked for a jury trial was not convicted and was returned to duty,albeit a different unit at a different installation - mine.His file put War and Peace to shame.I interviewed him as I was the Company CO and then assigned him to a platoon/squad.He turned out to be a model troop.The system worked after a fashion.
A group of black soldiers threatened a couple of white soldiers while waiting for a bus.Things got heated and a white soldier fired at the black soldiers inflicting minor injuries.The MP's arrested both groups and took them to the stockade.Someone had a sense of humor because the white soldiers were placed in a cell with some of the black soldiers that they had had a tussle with.The Staff Judge Advocate's office assigned lawyers to the soldiers.All the soldiers except a white soldier went with judge only trial option.All were convicted and went to the Disciplinary Barracks at Leavenworth.The white soldier that asked for a jury trial was not convicted and was returned to duty,albeit a different unit at a different installation - mine.His file put War and Peace to shame.I interviewed him as I was the Company CO and then assigned him to a platoon/squad.He turned out to be a model troop.The system worked after a fashion.
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 13,781
- Points
- 1,160
tomahawk6 said:
Your system is not to different from the way that ours used to be. Our system is as much "decentralized" as the US one when one speaks of the geographic distribution of legal officers. Our AJAGs and DJAs (LCols and Majs) are posted across Canada and accompany our forces on operations. They fulfill much the same role as you Staff Judge Advocates and their staff as far as providing legal advice to supported units including on military justice matters. In the past they also conducted prosecution and defence roles although now that is confined to the DMP and DDCS and their staffs. One major difference is that SJAs and their people are part of the "commanders staff" while in Canada AJAGs and DJAs are advisors who remain solely under the command of the JAG and are "not subject to the command of a officer who is not a legal officer" see QR&O 4.081
Where we differ and where we are now "centralized" is in the process of preferring charges and convening courts. In the US system "convening authority" resides in designated senior commanders of the chain of command (such as a Commander of a Combatant Command). That used to be the way that we did it but after the Somalia fiasco things were changed to reduce the perception (and in some cases the fact) of command interference in the judicial process by the CoC. In Canada the sole convening authority is now the Court Martial Administrator.
Similarly we have tightened up on who may "prefer" a charge for a court martial. Previously that rested in the CoC but is now reserved for the Director of Military Prosecutions. The role of the CoC includes investigation of charges (with or without MP or NIS assistance) and referral of charges upwards to Delegated Officers, Commanding Officers or Superior Commanders who have summary trial powers and, if the powers of punishment are inadequate, onward referral to a Referring Authority (i.e. the CDS or an Officer Commanding a Command) for referral to the DMP for review, further investigation, redraft of charges and finally preferral to the convening authority (CM Administrator).
One additional point. Our National Investigation Service (rough equivalent to your CID, NCIS, AFOSI) has the power to lay charges and also, where a delegated officer, CO, or Superior Commander decides not to proceed with the charge, to by pass that officer and refer the charge to the appropriate Referring Authority. My understanding is that US MPs etc do not have charge laying powers and no recourse if the CoC declines to proceed.
Our system works well for a force of our size and is reasonably expandable in the event of an unlikely ramping up of the CF. The US system is capable of operating at a more massive scale commensurate with its force structure but has frequently been criticised for undue/illegal command interference (particularly more recently in sexual assault cases). The retort is that discipline is a command function and accordingly commanders should not have their authorities reduced or restructured simply because the trial has gone from a summary proceeding to a court martial.
I've been a line officer (artillery and infantry) before I became a legal officer so I can see both sides of the argument. I think we've done the right thing but could go further yet. On the other hand I do not want to go the way of some of the European countries where much of the military justice system is in the hands of civilian federal prosecutors and judges.
:cheers:
I’m curious about a military tribunal court martial type question. I know the military tribunal can order jail time for things that under civilian law seem minor. And I’ve looked at some cases, mod. But I’m wondering peoples experience what is the most minor offense that resulted in jail time?
[added: Brass knuckles gets 10 days in the Barracks? What does that mean? Do soldiers confined to Barracks get to call their parents, or have access to internet/email?]
[added: Brass knuckles gets 10 days in the Barracks? What does that mean? Do soldiers confined to Barracks get to call their parents, or have access to internet/email?]
- Reaction score
- 64
- Points
- 530
Our first level of legal action is Non Judicial punishment administered by the company and or other commanders higher up the food chain its usually called Art 15.The types of punishment levied can include loss of pay,or confinement either in barracks or the post guardhouse. A member has the right to refuse NJP which would send the offender to a court martial where the punishment would be more severe.
The most trivial case I can remember, was caused by a black soldier that was close to his discharge date that refused to conform to haircut standards.He refused NJP and it went to Court Martial.He ended up getting a lower level of discharge where he would lose certain GI bill benefits.Being a hard head he wouldn't listen, he thought he would never need the benefits.He had a bad attitude calling his black platoon sgt an "uncle Tom". anyway he was discharged on time but he would never be able to re -enlist and lost the best parts of the GI Bill like education and health benfits all for an improper haircut.
The most trivial case I can remember, was caused by a black soldier that was close to his discharge date that refused to conform to haircut standards.He refused NJP and it went to Court Martial.He ended up getting a lower level of discharge where he would lose certain GI bill benefits.Being a hard head he wouldn't listen, he thought he would never need the benefits.He had a bad attitude calling his black platoon sgt an "uncle Tom". anyway he was discharged on time but he would never be able to re -enlist and lost the best parts of the GI Bill like education and health benfits all for an improper haircut.
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 13,781
- Points
- 1,160
tomahawk6 said:
This is a comprehensive overview of how our military justice system functions:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-military-law/military-justice-overview.page
ontheedge said:
Generally the military justice system does not provide jail time for things that are a minor matter.
In serious matters which are the rough equivalent of civilian offences, courts martial tend to give sentences of imprisonment in roughly equal terms to what a civilian court would. There are, however, offences that are unique to the military environment where detention is imposed to aid in enforcing the strict requirements of military discipline which is, of course, not a feature of civilian life.
"Confinement to ship or barracks" is not imprisonment or detention. It is a "minor punishment" under QR&O 104.13 that is in effect what one might consider "house arrest" where the individual carries on normal work at his ordinary place of duty, eats his meals at the mess hall as per usual and then spends his time in quarters as may be set out by the unit's rules. See s 7 and 9 to QR&O 108 http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-queens-regulations-orders-vol-02/ch-108.page
:cheers:
- Reaction score
- 2,479
- Points
- 1,190
FJAG said:
One thing I found odd about summary trials and a punishment confinement to barracks (but in reality is just practicing prudence):
- You're innocent until proven guilty, and the presiding officer is supposed to be someone who is at arm's length from the case, and while they probably know the gist of what happened, they shouldn't know the details
- nonetheless, everytime I've been to or heard of a summary trial where the result was confinement to barracks, the accused always showed up to the trial with a bag packed, and his personal affairs in order for a 1 week stay away from home
- it's like someone told them they were going to be found guilty, and that the punishment would be somewhere in the realm of 3-7 days CTB, but how could that be?
211RadOp
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 15
- Points
- 230
As an SSM, when I conducted a Summary Trial, I looked at the history of the accused and what the unit usually gave for the offence. If there was a chance of the member being confined to barracks, I told them to be prepared and have everything ready in case he was found guilty and sentenced to confinement to barracks. Sometimes he just got a fine and went on his merry way, but he was prepared to spend a week in barracks.
Similar threads
