VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight

[FJAG]

So.... straight up questions:

What happens in October if the Liberals are replaced by the Conservatives?

If the prosecution is independent, does the trial continue?  Can the new government take action to stop the trial, reinstate the admiral and reimburse him? Or is that political interference?

Does the Director of Prosecution Services continue the prosecution because to do otherwise would suggest she was not acting independently in the first place?  Or does the Attorney-General, acting independently and in a non-partisan fashion, despite being a Conservative and a member of Cabinet, quash the prosecution (as would be their right AFAIK) on the grounds of the case having been irredeemably political from the first?  If the latter then wouldn't the result be the tarnishing of the DPS and the Service while at the same time the remedy would be perceived as political?

As much as I believe the Admiral has been screwed-over on this one, I am not seeing an easy road out.  But that is probably why he hired Henein and not me. 

The way out truly isn't easy and will always be viewed as political interference by someone.

I doubt if anyone would interfere in the prosecution. That is an independent prosecutor's decision and will undoubtedly be left there.

The question on reinstatement and legal fees, however, is an administrative decision which can be taken within DND/government and should be taken after a review/investigation of the circumstances under which the initial decisions were made and to what effect they were governed by established policies v discretionary action by civil servants v political interference.

:cheers:

 

[Edward Campbell]

Actually, ERC, I would hope you are completely wrong on that one. I would hope that the decision to charge VAdm Norman was made and discussed only at the level of the independent crown attorneys and within the "professionals" of the offices of Federal prosecutors. Anything else, any decision making at the political or even higher civil service level (PCO) would be entirely inappropriate and actually make the decision political. That would in itself justify a judge to declare mistrial.

You're quite right and I phrased that very poorly ... I was trying to say that cabinet does not discuss prosecutions but I am sure that discussions of both the political and policy implications of investigating and then charging such a senior officer were discussed by both PMO (politics) and PCO (policy). I heard a rumour that the Ottawa prosecutors were gun shy, maybe after the Duffy fiasco, and that a crown prosecutor from another region finally pressed the charges.

I believe that IF there was (is) substantial evidence that cabinet confidences were leaked for any sort of gain, including just getting what one believes that the Navy needed, then charges, and, assuming a conviction, a harsh punishment are warranted. I have some personal doubts about this charge, given how many other people handled and mishandled that information, but that's just me guessing. I believe that cabinet government requires a high level of confidentiality to allow public servants, including admirals, to give cabinet the best possible advice ... the public, which includes Davie, has no right to the information that is given to cabinet, in confidence, and discussed by cabinet as they reach a decision. It, cabinet confidentiality, is not a flaw in our system it is simply a feature of it and one that needs to be guarded.

That being said, the PCO does discuss and debate policy matters and the PMO is there to ensure that the political dimension is considered, too. When someone (Brison?) complained that the cabinet's legitimate choice to reconsider a decision was co-opted by someone else, Davie, and when the police said that there was evidence that a cabinet confidence had been leaked by VAdm Norman, and a prosecutor decided that the evidence was sufficient to go to trial it is still, in my opinion, both likely and not improper for both the PCO and PMO to discuss the ramifications of the issue and explain those ramifications to the departmental ministers concerned, to the PM, himself, and if there are significant issues related to e.g. the machinery of government or national security to the Attorney General, too; my understanding of the Shawcross Doctrine is that such discussuins are normal and allowed so long as they do not cross a (fairly clear) line and become attempted poltiical directions.

 

[Kirkhill]

An interesting counter-point to this discussion might be the sacking of Gavin Williamson, UK Defence Secretary (equivalent to MND Sajjan) on suspicion of having leaked what was essentially a commercial discussion within the UK National Security Council about the awarding of a contract to Huawei to supply portions of a 5G network.

Williamson was sacked, proclaimed his innocence and asked for a police inquiry.  This happened:

A leak of information about ministers' deliberations over the Chinese tech giant Huawei did not amount to a criminal offence, Scotland Yard has said.

Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu, Britain's counter-terrorism chief, said he was satisfied that the disclosure from the National Security Council was not in breach of the Official Secrets Act or law on misconduct in a public office. 

The Metropolitan Police rejected demands for a criminal investigation into the matter. The decision came after Gavin Williamson was sacked as Defence Secretary over "compelling evidence" Theresa May claimed to have against her minister. 

In a statement, Mr Basu said today: "I have spoken to the Cabinet Office regarding the nature of the material that was discussed in the National Security Council.

"This material was used to inform a discussion, the outcome of which was subsequently disclosed to the media. I am satisfied that what was disclosed did not contain information that would breach the Official Secrets Act.

"I have considered all the information available to me and I have taken legal advice. I am satisfied that the disclosure did not amount to a criminal offence, either under the Official Secrets Act or Misconduct in a Public Office. No crime has been committed and this is not a matter for the police.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/05/04/huawei-leak-top-secret-national-security-meeting-did-not-amount/

For clarity - Huawei was being considered on the basis of being the least cost bidder, with many ex-civil servants and Tory politicians in its employ.  It was being held up because of concerns about security related to lax standards, poor software, backdoors found in other products supplied to other countries, the requirement of all Chinese companies to co-operate with the Chinese security services on demand and China's poor record wrt IP.

 

[TCM621]

You're quite right and I phrased that very poorly ... I was trying to say that cabinet does not discuss prosecutions but I am sure that discussions of both the political and policy implications of investigating and then charging such a senior officer were discussed by both PMO (politics) and PCO (policy). I heard a rumour that the Ottawa prosecutors were gun shy, maybe after the Duffy fiasco, and that a crown prosecutor from another region finally pressed the charges.

I believe that IF there was (is) substantial evidence that cabinet confidences were leaked for any sort of gain, including just getting what one believes that the Navy needed, then charges, and, assuming a conviction, a harsh punishment are warranted. I have some personal doubts about this charge, given how many other people handled and mishandled that information, but that's just me guessing. I believe that cabinet government requires a high level of confidentiality to allow public servants, including admirals, to give cabinet the best possible advice ... the public, which includes Davie, has no right to the information that is given to cabinet, in confidence, and discussed by cabinet as they reach a decision. It, cabinet confidentiality, is not a flaw in our system it is simply a feature of it and one that needs to be guarded.

That being said, the PCO does discuss and debate policy matters and the PMO is there to ensure that the political dimension is considered, too. When someone (Brison?) complained that the cabinet's legitimate choice to reconsider a decision was co-opted by someone else, Davie, and when the police said that there was evidence that a cabinet confidence had been leaked by VAdm Norman, and a prosecutor decided that the evidence was sufficient to go to trial it is still, in my opinion, both likely and not improper for both the PCO and PMO to discuss the ramifications of the issue and explain those ramifications to the departmental ministers concerned, to the PM, himself, and if there are significant issues related to e.g. the machinery of government or national security to the Attorney General, too; my understanding of the Shawcross Doctrine is that such discussuins are normal and allowed so long as they do not cross a (fairly clear) line and become attempted poltiical directions.

In general, I agree with you. However, I have an issue with how cabinet confidence is being used these days. The current practice is to label damn near everything cabinet confidence. I can't blame that entirely on the Liberal government, Harper was just as bad. However, this is just another example of the lack of promised transparency from Trudeau and his government.

 

[Navy_Pete]

It's independent of the politicians and now baked into the civilian bureaucracy DNA.  Saw open source background information all labeled as cabinet confidence just because it was part of a briefing package.

If it's designated as secret, it should be judiciously used and not the default. Because of how broadly it's applied, it's not taken seriously compared to actual secret data, and very few offices actually have the IT required to support it anyway, so pretty half assed. I think if they took it seriously on the IT side and realized it would cost millions as a result of the blanket coverage.

 

[dapaterson]

It's independent of the politicians and now baked into the civilian bureaucracy DNA.  Saw open source background information all labeled as cabinet confidence just because it was part of a briefing package.

Sometimes, even the fact that there is interest in topic X can warrant designation of information as a cabinet confidence.  And, when included with the larger package, the open source info is considered a cabinet confidence.

If it's designated as secret, it should be judiciously used and not the default. Because of how broadly it's applied, it's not taken seriously compared to actual secret data, and very few offices actually have the IT required to support it anyway, so pretty half assed. I think if they took it seriously on the IT side and realized it would cost millions as a result of the blanket coverage.

Agreed that over-designation is unfortunately common.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

They asked me to prepare a Memo to Cabinet which required a Secret clearance, I advised them that my clearance had expired. But because I was the SME, they said "don't worry about it". Sigh....

I can think of only 1 time in my office career being asked about whether i had the correct clearance for a briefing prior to it.

I also knew of one employee that worked from home on Secret Clearance stuff and MoC's. Except "home" was just across the border in Washington State. I can imagine if one day the US border services searched their computer and found Secret level docs. A quick call to Ottawa Foreign Services; "Does so and so have clearance to take these docs out of the country?" The answer would be no and they would be in jail till it was cleared up and likely a few careers spurting to a halt. I tried warning people, but it fell on deaf ears as the employee was tagged as a potentiel up and comer.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Article Link

Federal government expected to withdraw breach of trust charge against Mark Norman

His lawyers have always maintained that, as they put it in a third-party records application last fall, 'Vice-Admiral Norman is not the right person standing trial'

The federal government is expected to pull the plug on its prosecution of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman for alleged breach of trust, the National Post has learned.

The case is back in court on Wednesday for what was to have been a brief scheduled update on the progress of the government’s efforts at disclosing documents to Norman’s defence team.

Sources have confirmed that the prosecution will withdraw the charge instead.

The tip-off was an unusual alert from the Public Prosecution Service of Canada sent late Tuesday to reporters who have been following the case.

“The Public Prosecution of Canada would like to advise you that there is a scheduled appearance May 8, 2019 at 10:00 am in courtroom # 11 in the Mark Norman prosecution. You may wish to attend,” said the prosecution’s media advisory released at 6:52 p.m. ET.

It is unclear why exactly the government appears ready to end the case.

 

[dimsum]

So what happens now?  Retirement and lucrative job elsewhere?  I doubt he'll want to go back to his old job (even if he could) now.

 

[Haggis]

Makes good political sense.  Last thing the PM wants is this surfacing in the press again right before October.

 

[ballz]

Makes good political sense.  Last thing the PM wants is this surfacing i the press again right before October.

But the PPSC is independent.....................................................................................

 

[Haggis]

But the PPSC is independent.....................................................................................

Where did you hear that?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Hmmm....Can you refuse to let them drop the charges??

 

[brihard]

Hmmm....Can you refuse to let them drop the charges??

No.

 

[Good2Golf]

...or sue for malicious prosecution?

 

[PuckChaser]

...or sue for malicious prosecution?

They're probably hoping he doesn't have money left to do that.

 

[FJAG]

They're probably hoping he doesn't have money left to do that.

I bet there are any number of lawyers willing to do that on a contingency basis.

The more interesting question is whether his legal fees will now be paid by the government and whether or not he will be reinstated. I'm not sure how they could refuse.

:stirpot:

 

[YZT580]

Perhaps Leslie had more to contribute than just a character witness?  If I were running the Lib. campaign I would ask for the case to be dropped too.  Also, with it gone, they just have to wait a couple of weeks for the noise to die down and then they can let SNC off the hook.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Clobal News is reporting that the case against VADM Norman may be dropped.

More at the National Post.

Let the fun begin!!

 

[Czech_pivo]

They're probably hoping he doesn't have money left to do that.

Well I will state openly and clearly that I contributed to his 'Go Fund Me' campaign.

And I would do so again if he needed more.