VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight

[Remius]

Pure speculation, but curious if they are negotiating a settlement for wrongful dismissal?  This whole thing is ugly, particularly when they have found a few civvies that also leaked the same info, and the whole thing was watercooler talk anyway.

Except that he has not yet been dismissed. 

 

[Kirkhill]

And the options are what?

Reinstatement?  Leaving the government open to criticism and the Admiral free to speak within the limits imposed by the uniform?  Including the freedom to defend himself publicly?

Dismissal? Leaving the government open to criticism and the Admiral free to speak withinout the limits imposed by the uniform?  Including the freedom to defend himself publicly?

Keep him on the books at full pay until the Conservatives return to power and reinstate him prior to promoting him to CDS?

 

[Remius]

And the options are what?

No clue.  I'm merely pointing out that he hasn't been dismissed therefore talk of some sort of settlement for wrongful dismissal is innacurate.

The most likely outcome is a plum posting somewhere in Europe after some statements about how awesome he is and that he did nothing wrong.  out of sight out of mind until he can retire with the best possible pension in 2020. Then he might run for politics or write a book.  He'll never be CDS after this, guilty or not.

 

[Ostrozac]

And the options are what?

Isn't one of the options to drag out the investigation until the Admiral hits Compulsory Retirement Age, and therefore has to be released? Therefore preventing the member coming back into uniformed service, while also not having to actually prove any allegations.

If memory serves, that's a common tactic being used by the SQ and RCMP when dealing with bikers in Quebec, make an arrest, investigate a crime for 5-10 years or so, then let the accused go with time served, but never actually go to trial.

VAdm Norman graduated from Queen's in 1985. That means he probably finished Grade 13 in 1981, with a probable birth year of 1962. Can they drag this thing on until 2022?

 

[PuckChaser]

VAdm pay, mission accomplished stopping the Liberals from ending the badly needed Asterix purchase, and he doesn't have to go to work.

Where do I sign up?

 

[brihard]

Another consideration- Loss of security clearance. There doesn’t need to be any finding of guilt, and loss of clearance can be an instant death blow for a military career, leading to release.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Any which way you look at it, his credibility has taken damage regardless of any determination of culpability.  His career was over the minute the Mounties raided his home.  To have this drag on for a year now, only increases the damage done.  I am sure the monies awarded will be substantial, when that day arrives.

 

[Ostrozac]

There are many ways that this could end, of course. In between full reinstatement to duty with an apology and a cash payout and criminal prosecution leading to conviction are a host of other ways that this situation could play out.

Part of me wonders if this could eventually lead to a General Court Martial -- that would require yet another LGen/VAdm to be taken away from his day job in order to serve as the senior member of the panel.

 

[Rifleman62]

I very much doubt there will be a CM as they are open to the public (press) and the current government IMHO does not want the public to know that military procurement is in the LPC's interests, not Canada's.

 

[Kirkhill]

I doubt that VAdm Norman will ever be found guilty of anything

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/judge-lifts-publication-ban-on-rcmp-case-against-vice-admiral-norman/article34791139/

"I note that the main statements allegedly attributable to Vice-Admiral Mark Norman are contained in e-mails apparently written by him," Justice Phillips said. "It cannot be said that the mere fact of the communications in question leads inexorably to a conclusion of guilt such that potential jury impartiality would be compromised."

The judge went on to say: "Nowhere is there any suggestion that the man was even thinking of trying to line his own pockets, or get any personal advantage whatsoever."

Vice-Adm. Norman had expressed concerns in e-mails obtained by The Globe that any delay in the supply ship refit could pose serious problems for the Royal Canadian Navy.

Justice Phillips also dismissed concerns the affidavit would stigmatize Vice-Adm. Norman, saying it might actually help his legal defence should he eventually be charged with breach of trust.

"In my view, the mindset and alleged communications arising from it is hardly the stuff of stigma or moral turpitude," he wrote. "At its highest, it appears that the potential allegation against Vice-Admiral Norman is that he was trying to keep a contractual relationship together so that the country might get a badly needed supply ship."

 

[FJAG]

I very much doubt there will be a CM as they are open to the public (press) and the current government IMHO does not want the public to know that military procurement is in the LPC's interests, not Canada's.

While I'm very sensitive to the political aspects of this case, I'd just like to remind folks that both the NIS and the Director of Military Prosecutions are independent agencies by way of legislation. The test for whether or not there will be a court martial is whether anything has been done which is an offense and whether or not there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and whether it is in the "public" interest to proceed.

Any interference by the chain of command or the political leadership would lead to a scandal well beyond what there is now.

:cheers:

 

[Rifleman62]

The gist of my post was not aimed at the NIS and the Director of Military Prosecutions. I thought it was the RCMP who was doing the investigation, and who would lay/recommend or not lay/recommend charges, thus "I very much doubt there will be a CM as they are open to the public (press) and the current government IMHO does not want the public to know that military procurement is in the LPC's interests, not Canada's".

Or, am I missing something and or the responsibility and sequence.

 

[FJAG]

The gist of my post was not aimed at the NIS and the Director of Military Prosecutions. I thought it was the RCMP who was doing the investigation, and who would lay/recommend or not lay/recommend charges, thus "I very much doubt there will be a CM as they are open to the public (press) and the current government IMHO does not want the public to know that military procurement is in the LPC's interests, not Canada's".

Or, am I missing something and or the responsibility and sequence.

??? - I'm a bit confused. I cued on the word "CM" so thought you were alluding to a process that would end up in military charges regardless who is investigating now. I'd be surprised if there isn't cooperation/communication between the RCMP and NIS (and DoJ and DMP lawyers) as the offences (if any) would relate to his military duties (and/or breach thereof).

Conceivably the RCMP could find offences under other federal legislation that could end up being prosecuted in a civilian court by DoJ prosecutors and not a CM.

Regardless, the police and prosecutors (whether military or civilian) run investigations/prosecutions that are independent of political interference. All of these organizations are subject to leaks if individuals feel that political interference has curtailed the administration of justice and, again, the consequences of such interference would exceed the existing circumstances.

I think that the most probable reason that a case won't get to trial is if it is concluded that either there was no offence committed or even if there was that the evidence/case is so questionable that there is no reasonable prospect of conviction.

:cheers:

 

[McG]

The gist of my post was not aimed at the NIS and the Director of Military Prosecutions. I thought it was the RCMP who was doing the investigation, and who would lay/recommend or not lay/recommend charges, thus "I very much doubt there will be a CM as they are open to the public (press) and the current government IMHO does not want the public to know that military procurement is in the LPC's interests, not Canada's".

Or, am I missing something and or the responsibility and sequence.

You seem to still be saying that the decision to go to a court martial will be a politically driven decision.

RCMP lay criminal charges that go to civilian court and not to Court martial. If that is what you are trying to state, then the comments about the government not wanting an open trial are irrelevant to your point.

 

[brihard]

The investigation is RCMP, though I imagine NIS has been involved too in order to access military documents and information systems...

 

[FSTO]

CBC keeping the story alive.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-norman-case-prosecutors-1.4478470

There was also a quick blurb on CTV's Question Period last week.

I have a feeling that senior government and military people are wishing that they never pulled the trigger so quick. Like all bad news it never gets any better with time.

 

[garb811]

CBC keeping the story alive.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-norman-case-prosecutors-1.4478470

There was also a quick blurb on CTV's Question Period last week.

I have a feeling that senior government and military people are wishing that they never pulled the trigger so quick. Like all bad news it never gets any better with time.

And if nothing had been done even after the CDS had been briefed in on the investigation and it turns out he had been leaking, what then?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

And if nothing had been done even after the CDS had been briefed in on the investigation and it turns out he had been leaking, what then?

Indeed. But what now?

 

[garb811]

Indeed. But what now?

Same thing that happens with any other member of the CAF who has a serious allegation made against them which doesn't end in a conviction for a criminal or service offence.  Conduct an AR to see if they are subject to any administrative measures.  That would, of course, include the determination of if the member should continue to serve, notwithstanding the fact that the allegations did not lead to charges and/or were not proven in court if charges did result.

Fortunately, these procedures are well defined and exercised on a regular basis within the CAF and I would expect they would apply, and be applied, to the VCDS no differently than they would to any other member.

 

[Remius]

Same thing that happens with any other member of the CAF who has a serious allegation made against them which doesn't end in a conviction for a criminal or service offence.  Conduct an AR to see if they are subject to any administrative measures.  That would, of course, include the determination of if the member should continue to serve, notwithstanding the fact that the allegations did not lead to charges and/or were not proven in court if charges did result.

Fortunately, these procedures are well defined and exercised on a regular basis within the CAF and I would expect they would apply, and be applied, to the VCDS no differently than they would to any other member.

Careful now...you sound like you make sense.