• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Charges Laid for Corruption of a Database

Michael OLeary

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2
Points
430
And this one is locked while every contemplates the value of their contribution while sipping a cold drink.

Milnet.ca Staff
 

Bruce Monkhouse

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
2,384
Points
1,260
Occam said:
My reasoning is somewhat more simple:  If it were a tactic that actually worked, we'd actually see it employed both on civvie street and in courts martial.  The fact that we don't hear about it means it probably isn't a consideration in sentencing.

I truly apologize for posting over a lock, however I could not let that heap of dung go by.

IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME!.........and yes, it is a severe consideration. Hence the reason that IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME! [oh, did I already mention that?]
 

Occam

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2
Points
430
This is going to be one very interesting transcript to read.  I'm scratching my head here...

Any bets on administrative action?

Article link

Court-martialed sailors get minimum sentence


By David ********  February 9, 2009 7:01 PM
 

VICTORIA — A court martial judge ordered today that two sailors in a precedent-setting legal case linked to secret military computer systems and the security of information be reduced in rank and fined.

In announcing his decision, judge Col. Mario Dutil said the sentence was the minimum the court could impose.

Petty Officer (Second Class) Janet Sinclair and her spouse, Petty Officer (Second Class) Silvya Reid, worked at the National Defence Headquarters command centre in Ottawa at the time of the incident in July 2007 and both had a top-secret clearance and access to classified databases.

The two were originally charged with a number of offences including sabotage but that and other charges were later dropped.

The two pleaded guilty last week to damaging military property, in this case a computer desktop icon. Their actions "impeded access to a 'classified' database," the court heard.

Petty Officer Sinclair was reduced in rank to leading seaman, given a severe reprimand, and fined $3,000. Petty Officer Reid was reduced in rank to leading seaman and fined $3,000.
 

geo

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Well... that'll be a great deterrent to those who might be inclined to pranks & intentional damaging of DND property.... I hope they start with Col Dutil's PC
 

garb811

Army.ca Veteran
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
9
Points
530
I'm perplexed by the statement that this was the minimum the Court could impose as Service Offences only specify a "<maximum punishment> or to less punishment."  There are no "minimum sentences", unless the reporter dropped something like "in the circumstances" etc.

Although I would have preferred to see time in the digger, this is a sentence that keeps on giving, to the tune of about $7200 each year for each of them when you consider the reduced rates of pay they will now receive, even better than going to jail if the reduction in rank wasn't also imposed.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
7,151
Points
1,090
Available information states that each was found guilty of a single charge; no evidence was lead on the other two charges and thus both were found not guilty of those charges.

According to the scale of punishments (http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qro-orf/vol-02/doc/chapter-chapitre-104.pdf) a reduction in rank is just below detention in severity.

This is far from the minimum sentence.

 

Occam

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2
Points
430
Well, it took a lot of looking around, but I think I found out why they're talking about a minimum sentence.

From one of the posts above, it mentions it was a General Court Martial - and section 166.1 of the NDA states that the punishment for a General Court Martial "may only pass a sentence that includes a punishment of imprisonment or a fine".

Am I in the ballpark?
 

garb811

Army.ca Veteran
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
9
Points
530
No, that section deals with non-service members, so, for example, if a General Court Martial tried a dependent who had been posted overseas, they could only impose a penalty of a fine or imprisionment.  Kind of hard to reduce a civilian in rank etc.
 

Bruce Monkhouse

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
2,384
Points
1,260
Maybe he meant hypothetically "the minimum"....not legally.
 

Journeyman

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,110
Points
940
And do we lift the security clearances of every female in the CF, in DND, and all across government, who...... ~shudder~ ....gets pregnant?

After all, the poor little muffin did say it was because of hormone changes; not her fault.

::)


As for "being shunned by their peers," maybe that should have been an indicator to the judge how the military feels about their actions. Whatever happened to 'trial by ones peers' rather than some lawyer who's operational experience is limited to passing the bar exam. 

"Justice; seen to be done," my buttocks  :mad:
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
7,151
Points
1,090
Journeyman said:
"Justice; seen to be done," my buttocks  :mad:

I think when they walk around the dockyard with two hooks vice three with a leaf justice will be seen to be done.

My concern is that there was no forfeiture of seniority imposed.  Therefore, they will both be LS, maximum IPC, with the quals and time-in-rank to be eligible for promotion.  I recall one WO, busted down to Sgt for his implication in the negligent death of a soldier, who was promoted back to WO the next year.
 

Journeyman

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,110
Points
940
dapaterson said:
I think when they walk around the dockyard with two hooks vice three with a leaf justice will be seen to be done.
Having spent time in the tailor shop, twice, following standing hatless before the CO.....I disagree.

They were really, really sorry -- and since neither of us got to vote on these two -- I guess further discussion is fruitless.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
7,151
Points
1,090
For those interested in this court-martial, the transcript of the sentencing has been released and posted to the internet at:

http://www.cmj.forces.gc.ca/dec/2009/doc/2009cm1004-eng.pdf
 

V_I_Lenin

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
110
Seems like an appropriate time to resurrect this thread. The results of the Leading Seaman's appeal was posted yesterday:

http://www.cmac-cacm.ca/decisions/CMAC-524_e.pdf

Their Court Martial appeal was dismissed. A quote of note; "In fact, LS Reid and LS
Sinclair are fortunate to still have a place in the Canadian Forces."

From working in NDCC in Ottawa, to herding PAT's in Esquimalt. A lesson to be learned there, surely...
 

Wookilar

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
"A reduction in rank is an important tool in the sentencing kit of the military judge. It signifies more effectively than any fine or reprimand that can be imposed the military’s loss of trust in the offending member. That loss of trust is expressed in this case through demotion to a position in which the offenders have lost their supervisory capacity."

Here, here!

I think it's unfortunate that the original charge of sabotage could not be supported in court. It certainly fits the dictionary meaning.
I like:
"Treacherous action to defeat or hinder a cause or an endeavor; deliberate subversion."

Seems to fit to me.

Wook
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
4,412
Points
1,110
Wookilar said:
I think it's unfortunate that the original charge of sabotage could not be supported in court. It certainly fits the dictionary meaning.
I like:
"Treacherous action to defeat or hinder a cause or an endeavor; deliberate subversion."

Seems to fit to me.

Wook

In order to prove sabotage, intent must be proven. It may be that the prosecution could not prove that intent.
 

Wookilar

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
That's exaxctly it, their behaviour and motivations were childish not seditious.
 
Top