HMCS Preserver 2012 Hijinks in Florida=desertion charge?

[The Bread Guy]

Some reminders:
1)  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."
2)  This case may attract attention from the media and public, which can lead to them showing up here looking for quotes etc. Be very careful of what you post - even though this isn't an official military site, people pay different attention to what those who self-identify as military have to say. 
3)  Moderators will be on the lookout for anything that could create problems (legal or otherwise) for the owner of this site.

CBC.ca's story from almost exactly one year ago today:

The Royal Canadian Navy is investigating after more than a dozen incidents involving drunken sailors from a number of countries were reported to police in the Florida Keys, according to a statement released by the navy.

The supply ship HMCS Preserver is now back in Halifax harbour after returning from mid-September exercises in the Caribbean. 

The incidents occurred while the ship was docked in Key West, Fla., along with half a dozen foreign and U.S. ships.

There were 5,000 sailors in all, 250 of them from HMCS Preserver. 

During the brief visit, there were at least 14 incidents involving dozens of sailors. Some sailors were returned to the HMCS Preserver by local police or shore patrol, read the statement, but it was not made clear how many Canadians may have been involved in incidents.

The navy will be looking at allegations of drunkenness, falling down in the streets, slumping over in bars, drunk driving on scooters and public mischief.   

"As a matter of due diligence, HMCS Preserver is looking into each incident to ensure the conduct of our Canadian sailors [was] consistent with Canadian Forces' code of service discipline," read the navy's statement to CBC News ....

.... followed by the latest story:

A Royal Canadian Navy officer could spend life in prison after being accused of leaving his post during a military operation, CBC News has learned.

The desertion charge stems from HMCS Preserver’s port visit to Florida last fall.

On that same trip there was an investigation into widespread drunkenness.

During the brief visit, there were at least 14 incidents involving dozens of sailors. Some sailors were returned to the ship by local police or shore patrol.

Now one Canadian sailor faces desertion charges. A Navy spokesman won't link the two cases.
Court martial

“The member will have his day in court so to speak. It’s innocent until proven guilty,” said Capt. Darren Garnier ....

 

[garb811]

As usual, the media has taken the worst case scenario for the "oh my gosh the military is so harsh!" factor.  If you read Sec 88 of the NDA you will see there are two possibilities for sentencing, one for when the member is on active service or under orders for active service, which does provide for life in prison and one for all other cases, which provides for term of imprisonment not exceeding five years or less punishment:

Desertion
Offence

    88. (1) Every person who deserts or attempts to desert is guilty of an offence and on conviction, if the person committed the offence on active service or under orders for active service, is liable to imprisonment for life or to less punishment and, in any other case, is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to less punishment.

Definition

(2) A person deserts who

    (a) being on or having been warned for active service, duty during an emergency or other important service, is absent without authority with the intention of avoiding that service;

    (b) having been warned that his vessel is under sailing orders, is absent without authority with the intention of missing that vessel;

    (c) absents himself without authority from his place of duty with the intention of remaining absent from his place of duty;

    (d) is absent without authority from his place of duty and at any time during such absence forms the intention of remaining absent from his place of duty; or

    (e) while absent with authority from his place of duty, with the intention of remaining absent from his place of duty, does any act or omits to do anything the natural and probable consequence of which act or omission is to preclude the person from being at his place of duty at the time required.

Presumption of desertion

(3) A person who has been absent without authority for a continuous period of six months or more shall, unless the contrary is proved, be presumed to have had the intention of remaining absent from his place of duty.

 

[GAP]

Let me get this straight.....5,000 sailors on liberty and only 14 incidents ranging from allegations of drunkenness, falling down in the streets, slumping over in bars, drunk driving on scooters and public mischief.  ?

Now that is really stretching the political correctness doctrine....what have we come to?  :

 

[Eye In The Sky]

In comparison, here are the acts of some other Canadians to be judged.

*Note - the "...life sentence..."  anic: bone was tossed out in that CBC article as well.

 

[PuckChaser]

Let me get this straight.....5,000 sailors on liberty and only 14 incidents ranging from allegations of drunkenness, falling down in the streets, slumping over in bars, drunk driving on scooters and public mischief.  ?

That's not how I'm reading it. The 14 incidents were from just the Preserver's crew.

This isn't political correctness, if you can't handle your booze without public mischief or drunk driving, then maybe you shouldn't have booze. Plenty of people get drunk and do stupid stuff, they just don't do it in uniform while on liberty in a foreign country and get caught.

 

[GAP]

Your link went to an empty posting window...

 

[Old EO Tech]

That's not how I'm reading it. The 14 incidents were from just the Preserver's crew.

This isn't political correctness, if you can't handle your booze without public mischief or drunk driving, then maybe you shouldn't have booze. Plenty of people get drunk and do stupid stuff, they just don't do it in uniform while on liberty in a foreign country and get caught.

I would agree, but still desertion is a bit over the top.  AWOL yes, drunkenness yes, 129 yes....but it would be pretty hard to prove the required "intent" required for desertion.

Jon 

 

[DAA]

My math and you definitely can't go wrong with this equation.......

Foreign Location + CF Uniform + Over Indulgence = Possibility of a bad result

 

[GAP]

That's not how I'm reading it. The 14 incidents were from just the Preserver's crew.

This isn't political correctness, if you can't handle your booze without public mischief or drunk driving, then maybe you shouldn't have booze. Plenty of people get drunk and do stupid stuff, they just don't do it in uniform while on liberty in a foreign country and get caught.

Did you read the pink highlighted parts of my post..... Old EO Tech is closer to reality....take 250 guys from any base and let them fly for the weekend and I would be you could drum up 14 charges in the first few hours....especially falling down in the streets, slumping over in bars.

Unlike the sober, mature members we are probably talking about young kids kicking up their heels thinking Big Brother isn't going to be watching too hard way down here....and besides that twerp from such'n such ship just told me Canadians can't drink worth donkey p*&^...... game on!!  ;D

 

[garb811]

That's not how I'm reading it. The 14 incidents were from just the Preserver's crew.

This isn't political correctness, if you can't handle your booze without public mischief or drunk driving, then maybe you shouldn't have booze. Plenty of people get drunk and do stupid stuff, they just don't do it in uniform while on liberty in a foreign country and get caught.

Yeah, because its not like there were ever any problem with folks when we were doing the 72 hr R&R leave centers in the Balkans, in Guam after APOLLO 0 and currently in Cyprus.  Heck, they were so well behaved they didn't even put any MP on staff there...oh, wait a minute...

I would agree, but still desertion is a bit over the top.  AWOL yes, drunkenness yes, 129 yes....but it would be pretty hard to prove the required "intent" required for desertion.

Jon 

Unless you've been privy to the investigation, this would be pure speculation, would it not?

 

[Old EO Tech]

Yeah, because its not like the Army ever had any problem with their guys when they were doing the 72 hr R&R leave centers and currently in Cyprus.  Heck, they were so well behaved they didn't even put any MP on staff there...oh, wait a minute...
Unless you've been privy to the investigation, this would be pure speculation, would it not?

Educated speculation but yes.  In my educated opinion it is unlikely that these sailors, intentionally avoided returning to the ship.  And that the said ship was scheduled to leave during the time period the sailors were passed out in the bar/street/ditch.....etc.

I've done more than my share of DI's and charges in my career to date, and I would not even bother to waste the AJAG's time asking to lay a desertion charge on drunk sailors :-/

 

[garb811]

Given Desertion is not able to be tried via Summary Trial, pre-charge screening by AJAG IAW QR&O 107.03 was required, so I'm pretty sure whoever laid the charge had the evidence they needed to lay it and the AJAG supported that decision or it wouldn't have happened.

I also note the Capt refused to link the Desertion charge with the allegations of Drunkenness etc in the CBC article.

 

[Electric Ian]

That's not how I'm reading it. The 14 incidents were from just the Preserver's crew.

This isn't political correctness, if you can't handle your booze without public mischief or drunk driving, then maybe you shouldn't have booze. Plenty of people get drunk and do stupid stuff, they just don't do it in uniform while on liberty in a foreign country and get caught.

There's a lot more to this story than you're aware of.  I was there, but I'm not going to elaborate or comment on it.  Incidents like this happen all the time in EVERY Navy around the world, shit happens, and people need to get a grip and some backbone wrt to PR. Believe it or not, CF members are HUMAN and they ARE going to make mistakes.  There's no way he's getting an "impartial" trial when it's all over the news, unless he goes inland.

 

[Lightguns]

If it's in uniform, you have no excuse, regardless of navy, army or girl guides.  When you are in uniform you are not a private person.

 

[MARS]

There's a lot more to this story than you're aware of.  I was there, but I'm not going to elaborate or comment on it.  Incidents like this happen all the time in EVERY Navy around the world, crap happens, and people need to get a grip and some backbone wrt to PR. Believe it or not, CF members are HUMAN and they ARE going to make mistakes.  There's no way he's getting an "impartial" trial when it's all over the news, unless he goes inland.

An that's a fair statement - being human and making mistakes and getting a grip.  Unfortunately, the way the senior leadership might choose to 'get a grip' might be to do away wih booze on ships.  Will it stop these kind of incidents?  No.  But at least the ship won't be contributing to it.  A LOT of sailors fail to realize that there is a building movement underway to do away wih booze.  Because it is a relatively easy way to mitigate some of this stuff.  EVERYTIME something like this happens, the argument gains more ligitimacy.  There is simply very, very little tolerance among the Canadian public for this kind of stuff from CAF members.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Sailors drunk in a foreign port, my god, has this ever happen before, has briefing notes been written, memo's to Cabinet. Where any of them visible minorities? Quick, find the headless chicken and set it loose.....

 

[The Bread Guy]

Sailors drunk in a foreign port, my god, has this ever happen before, has briefing notes been written, memo's to Cabinet. Where any of them visible minorities? Quick, find the headless chicken and set it loose.....

At one level, I agree with you.  Sadly, though, "the rules" are often made not because of the 99% of folks who use common sense and think before they act, but because of the others.  And (to mix my metaphors a bit) like bad cops, teachers, nurses, doctors, etc., it only take one "holy crap" to erase the million "attaboys" out there.

Welcome to the land of "risk aversion and don't embarrass the boss".

 

[captloadie]

To get a better understanding of why this particular charge was laid would it be fair to say that:

a) a member who misses the departure of his ship, aircraft, etc. but makes the effort to report the fact and meet the ship, aircraft at its next destination would be AWOL; but

b) a member who misses the departure and just says screw it and makes his way back to his shore based home unit (either ASAP, or not), would be closer to being considered as deserting?

 

[George Wallace]

b) a member who misses the departure and just says screw it and makes his way back to his shore based home unit (either ASAP, or not), would be closer to being considered as deserting?

I disagree.  Making his way back to his shore based home unit would show that he did not intend to desert, and was using a reasonable means to return to his unit.

Desertion would be more in line with: if (s)he decided to disappear and intend not to return to CAF service at all.

 

[Remius]

It can according to the definition be in line with: "Hey I'm the duty watch guy but screw it I'm going into town to fornicate"  except that you are on active service and you deserted your post.