Sexual Misconduct Allegations in The CAF

[brihard]

Yeah, extraterritorial military sex offences is likely a very small niche. I'm not sure there is a particularly efficient way to handle that. Sometimes you need to simply throw money at certain types of files to get them done. Although, certainly, the costs would increase greatly when sending over RCMP or other non-military investigators who get overtime and such, versus simply telling a couple MPs that they're getting on a plane tomorrow. Anything involving short notice rescheduling and/or significant travel can get expensive fast.

Flip side to that- could NIS maintain sufficient expertise in sex crimes to handle this very limited number of cases effectively? How many extraterritorial sex assaults does CAF prosecute in a year?

 

[Haggis]

Flip side to that- could NIS maintain sufficient expertise in sex crimes to handle this very limited number of cases effectively? How many extraterritorial sex assaults does CAF prosecute in a year?

Probably not enough to gain sufficient expertise. But seconding NIS to large local/provincial CIVPOL sexual assault/sex crimes units for a period of professional development would rack up the experience level quickly.

 

[MilEME09]

'I felt completely betrayed:' Canadian veteran speaks out on sexual assault

A Canadian veteran has come forward to speak about being sexually assaulted during training, saying he felt 'completely betrayed' by the chain of command.

www.ctvnews.ca

Oh boy get ready for a few more cards to fall

 

[FJAG]

I would presume that within the NIS there is either an individual or team responsible for supervising/conducting investigations of cases involving sexual misconduct.

Within JAG there has been a policy for many years regarding such cases and occasional cross-training with experienced civilian counsel. In 2017 the office of the JAG designated a LCol position as Deputy Director Military Prosecutions - Sexual Misconduct Action Response Team (DDMP- SMART) to mentor prosecutors and oversee any prosecution involving sexual misconduct. I'm not sure about the current individual holding that position but from the start until 2020 the position was held by a Reserve Force Leg O who is a civilian prosecutor in Toronto with experience in the field.

Not sure if this has been posted yet:

Joint Statement of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal and the Director of Military Prosecutions - Canada.ca

We all recognize that allegations of sexual misconduct against senior leaders have had a detrimental effect on the credibility of the CAF and the morale of its members.

www.canada.ca

 

[dimsum]

'I felt completely betrayed:' Canadian veteran speaks out on sexual assault

A Canadian veteran has come forward to speak about being sexually assaulted during training, saying he felt 'completely betrayed' by the chain of command.

www.ctvnews.ca

I read everything, then I saw this:

In the future, Hudson says he wishes to go back to the military career he was so looking forward to having before his ordeal.

He has filed a new complaint against his alleged assaulters.

“I’m in a good state of mind,” he said. “I’m mentally ready to rejoin the military, I want to rejoin the military.”

Wait what? If the organization was so bad that it caused me to leave the country and change my name, the last thing I'd want to do is rejoin it.

 

[ballz]

If civilian authorities can't investigate/prosecute criminal offences because they "just don't know enough about the military," why are we convinced that Infantry WOs and MWOs can investigate a crime when they don't know anything about law, prosecution, investigative procedures, evidence, etc.? What am I missing here, being in the military makes all that stuff no longer important? They're not exactly trivial details. I would think the fact that a crime took place in a military setting is a lot less difficult to overcome than not knowing about all that other stuff.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I read everything, then I saw this:


Wait what? If the organization was so bad that it caused me to leave the country and change my name, the last thing I'd want to do is rejoin it.

Well, there's this possibility:


Battered woman syndrome, or battered person syndrome, is a psychological condition that can develop when a person experiences abuse, usually at the hands of an intimate partner.

People who find themselves in an abusive relationship often do not feel safe or happy. However, they may feel unable to leave for many reasons. These include fear and a belief that they are the cause of the abuse.

Abuse can affect people of any gender, age, social class, or education. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)Trusted Source refer to the type of abuse that occurs within a relationship as intimate partner violence (IPV).

Battered woman syndrome: Definition, symptoms, and getting help

Battered woman or battered person syndrome is a condition that can develop as a result of an abusive intimate relationship. A person who receives abuse in a relationship often finds it hard to leave, despite the hardships they face. Find out more about what this involves, the stages of abuse...

www.medicalnewstoday.com

 

[CBH99]

If civilian authorities can't investigate/prosecute criminal offences because they "just don't know enough about the military," why are we convinced that Infantry WOs and MWOs can investigate a crime when they don't know anything about law, prosecution, investigative procedures, evidence, etc.? What am I missing here, being in the military makes all that stuff no longer important? They're not exactly trivial details. I would think the fact that a crime took place in a military setting is a lot less difficult to overcome than not knowing about all that other stuff.

Whether the crown knows anything about the military is irrelevant. Or should be, anyway.

- are there reasonable grounds to believe that a member committed a crime?

- is the nature of the crime worth pursuing to the full extent possible, or can it be dealt with alternatively?

- is there enough evidence to support a reasonable expectation of a conviction?


It doesn’t/shouldn’t matter if the accused wears a shirt & tie to work, or business casual, or a CADPAT uniform. It doesn’t matter if they wear NCD. It doesn’t matter if they wear a clown nose & a rainbow wig.


0.02

 

[Haggis]

It doesn’t matter if they wear a clown nose & a rainbow wig.

We don't want politicians doing criminal investigations.

 

[CBH99]

We don't want politicians doing criminal investigations.

Totally agreed. But I don’t think that was suggested?? (I may have missed a few posts, I’ll take a few mins and scroll.)

My post was in response to the suggestion that because civilian crown prosecutors may not necessarily be familiar with the military, they may have challenges in prosecuting charges.

My post was simply saying it doesn’t matter if the accused is a military member or not. Nor does the crown need to know anything about the military in order to present evidence to a court, especially if all of this is happening in the civilian criminal justice system.

 

[FJAG]

Totally agreed. But I don’t think that was suggested?? (I may have missed a few posts, I’ll take a few mins and scroll.)

My post was in response to the suggestion that because civilian crown prosecutors may not necessarily be familiar with the military, they may have challenges in prosecuting charges.

My post was simply saying it doesn’t matter if the accused is a military member or not. Nor does the crown need to know anything about the military in order to present evidence to a court, especially if all of this is happening in the civilian criminal justice system.

I agree with that. Fundamentally when it comes to criminal law, the law is the same in both civilian and military courts. The more significant difference is in procedures under the CCC/provincial court system and under the CSD and the court martial. That difference doesn't matter for CCC offences tried in a provincial court because it will follow the standard provincial court procedure assuming whatever legislation that they come up with doesn't stuff it up ... and there are plenty of places where it can get stuffed up such as in CSD scales of punishment (many of which do not exist in civilian courts), where will detention take place on a shorter sentence, etc etc.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

It will be interesting to see if the various Provincial Court Judges are given the ability to sentence any military members found guilty to serve their time in the DB in Edmonton. Or do they have to use Provincial Jail?

 

[FJAG]

It will be interesting to see if the various Provincial Court Judges are given the ability to sentence any military members found guilty to serve their time in the DB in Edmonton. Or do they have to use Provincial Jail?

Judges don't choose the jail. In part the offence and length of sentence determines the class of institution but its up to the appropriate department of corrections to determine the specific institute. Legislation can always address that issue but the debate is whether it should or not.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Judges don't choose the jail. In part the offence and length of sentence determines the class of institution but its up to the appropriate department of corrections to determine the specific institute. Legislation can always address that issue but the debate is whether it should or not.

Thanks for that. IMHO, DB would be likely be a better option for incarceration for military members- it does not add more load to the prison system and it is not like DB is a walk in the park.

 

[ballz]

Totally agreed. But I don’t think that was suggested?? (I may have missed a few posts, I’ll take a few mins and scroll.)

He was making a joke about "clown noses and rainbow wigs," the inference is that people who wear clown noses and rainbow wigs are politicians.

My post was in response to the suggestion that because civilian crown prosecutors may not necessarily be familiar with the military, they may have challenges in prosecuting charges.

My post was simply saying it doesn’t matter if the accused is a military member or not. Nor does the crown need to know anything about the military in order to present evidence to a court, especially if all of this is happening in the civilian criminal justice system.

Just so we're clear here, since it was my post you were replying to, my post was not a suggestion of such. My post was pointing out the hypocrisy in people who are questioning whether a civilian system can prosecute military members competently, given that our current system is asking for a far taller order.... completely unqualified WOs and MWOs to play the role investigators/prosecutors*.

I'm of the same mindset that there's no reason a civilian authority can't investigate/prosecute.

*I know they aren't literally prosecutors, but when you look at a summary trial, they are essentially the version of the prosecutor, putting forth the argument/evidence of why someone is guilty.

 

[CBH99]

He was making a joke about "clown noses and rainbow wigs," the inference is that people who wear clown noses and rainbow wigs are politicians.



Just so we're clear here, since it was my post you were replying to, my post was not a suggestion of such. My post was pointing out the hypocrisy in people who are questioning whether a civilian system can prosecute military members competently, given that our current system is asking for a far taller order.... completely unqualified WOs and MWOs to play the role investigators/prosecutors*.

I'm of the same mindset that there's no reason a civilian authority can't investigate/prosecute.

*I know they aren't literally prosecutors, but when you look at a summary trial, they are essentially the version of the prosecutor, putting forth the argument/evidence of why someone is guilty.

Wow - my brain is processing things just a wee bit slow tonight That was a good joke too!

I have a side hustle on the weekends which I’m realizing isn’t sustainable. Since I woke up on Friday late morning, I haven’t slept for more than an hour - and it’s 11:24pm on Sunday.

Now that I’ve re-read those posts…

 

[KevinB]

Which does leave open the questions of sexual offences down in a foreign jurisdiction and how those will be investigated. My gut tells me we're going back to the pre 1985 legislation where there is no CSD jurisdiction for sexual offences committed in Canada but that DND will have jurisdiction to investigate and try sexual offences outside Canada.

I really can't see getting the RCMP involved. It's just too small a number of offences and the idea of having someone come in from outside just seems inefficient.

Given the fiasco with two former CDS I strongly suggest either a two tier option - to go forward in Civilian Criminal Justice System or the Military Legal System, and if not, I would drop the Military system for the Civilian in a heart beat.

 

[ueo]

Mention made of the DB in Edmonton. Does it still exist? Thought it was closed along with the CF hospitals.

 

[H11F]

Mention made of the DB in Edmonton. Does it still exist? Thought it was closed along with the CF hospitals.

CFSPDB is still functioning, though likely empty or close to.

 

[kev994]

The only thing I ever hear is complaints that it’s always empty. Related note: I did POCT recently and the JAG indicated that under the new summary trial system about to drop there will not be detention as a punishment available for COs.