- Reaction score
I'm around but keeping my head down on much of this topic as I try not to comment about things where I do not have enough details to be able to form a worthwhile opinion. Since you've asked, however, I'll give you my $0.02 worth.FJAG if he is around can probably give us the answer.
The facts as I understand them is that the alleged incident took place between two CF personnel on a CF ship within the US territorial limits which leaves me no doubt that the CF has jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute.
The offence of sexual assault is one common to the laws of both Canada and the Hawaii and by being on a Canadian ship in US territory would result in concurrent jurisdiction under paras 1a and b of Article VII of the NATO SOFA BUT, since the offence was against a CF member, Canada would have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction under para 3a of Article VII.
Note that para 3c of Article VII requires that if Canada chooses not to exercise its primary right to take jurisdiction then there is an obligation to advise the US of it's decision as soon as practical. This would have been of significance if the incident had been reported at the time of the incident as at that time the Hawaiian authorities could have taken up jurisdiction.
Note that there is a statute of limitations with respect to rape in Hawaii of three years from the date of the offence in the case of an 18 year and older adult and I'm not aware of any circumstances at play that would result in an extension of that limitation.
I'm not one hundred percent certain but I do not think that NCIS would have any jurisdiction in this matter as this case would not involve any US Navy personnel subject to the UCMJ or other Navy assets over which NCIS would have criminal investigative authority. The fact that it may have happened within the confines of a US Navy shipyard would not, in my opinion, by itself be sufficient and I would think that state authorities would have had primary jurisdiction under US law.