Transcription
DIRECTOR OF MILITARY PROSECUTIONSANNUAL REPORT
This report, covering the period of 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011, is prepared inaccordance with article 110.11 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the CanadianForces (QR&O), which requires the Director of Military Prosecutions 1 (DMP) to reportannually to the Judge Advocate General (JAG) on the execution of his duties andfunctions. 2 This report is organized into sections that will discuss the following: Organizational Profile Duties and Functions of the DMP Structure of the DMP Training and Policy Development Military Justice Proceedings: Trials, Appeals and Other Hearings Conclusion – DMP CommentsOrganizational ProfileOur MissionTo provide competent, fair, swift and deployable prosecution services to the CanadianForces in Canada and overseas.Our Vision“ORDO PER JUSTITIA” or “DISCIPLINE THROUGH JUSTICE”. The Director ofMilitary Prosecutions is a key player in the Canadian military justice system helping topromote discipline, good order, high morale, esprit de corps, group cohesion andoperational efficiency and capability.Duties and Functions of the DMPThe Director of Military Prosecutions is appointed by the Minister of National Defence.Although the DMP acts under the general supervision of the Judge Advocate General, heexercises his duties and functions independently. Those duties and functions, which areset out in the National Defence Act (NDA), the Queen's Regulations and Orders for theCanadian Forces, ministerial orders and other agreements, include: 1Reviewing all Code of Service Discipline charges referred to him through theCanadian Forces chain of command and determining whether:The DMP for the reporting period was Captain (Navy) J.C. Maguire, who was appointed to a four yearterm on 19 September 2009.2Previous DMP Annual Reports, along with copies of DMP Policy Directives and other information can befound at the DMP website: -eng.asp.
o The charges or other charges founded on the evidence should be tried bycourt martial; oro The charges should be dealt with by an officer who has jurisdiction to trythe accused by summary trial. Conducting – within Canada or at deployed locations overseas – the prosecutionof all charges tried by court martial. Acting as appellate counsel for the Minister of National Defence on all appealsfrom courts martial. Acting as the representative of the Canadian Forces at all custody review hearingsconducted before a military judge. Acting as the representative of the Canadian Forces before other boards andtribunals whose jurisdiction touches upon matters relevant to the military justicesystem. Providing legal advice to military police personnel assigned to the CanadianForces National Investigation Service (CFNIS).Structure of the DMPThe DMP is assisted in his duties and functions by regular and reserve force legal officersappointed to act as military prosecutors, along with civilian paralegals and support staff.DMP is organized regionally, and consists of: DMP headquarters at National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa consisting of theDMP, the Assistant Director of Military Prosecutions (ADMP), two DeputyDirectors of Military Prosecutions (DDMP(East) and DDMP (West)), an appellatecounsel, a military prosecutor responsible for communications, training and policydevelopment and a legal advisor working directly with the CFNIS; Regional Military Prosecutors’ (RMP) offices, each with an establishment of tworegular force military prosecutors, located at: Halifax, Nova Scotia (Atlantic Region), Valcartier, Quebec (Eastern Region), Ottawa, Ontario (Central Region), Edmonton, Alberta (Western Region);
Reserve force military prosecutors located individually across Canada.DMP PersonnelDuring this reporting period, DMP experienced a number of personnel and positionchanges at DMP headquarters. A position of ADMP was created. For the thirdconsecutive year, the position of military prosecutor responsible for communications,training and policy development remained vacant, creating a void in an importantposition within the organization. We benefitted from the full time employment of areserve force military prosecutor on secondment from the Ontario Attorney General.This experienced civilian Regional Crown attorney was assigned as co-counsel in thehigh profile court martial in R. v. Semrau. 3The Regional Military Prosecutions offices were also affected by significant personnelchanges as four experienced military prosecutors left the DMP for other postings withinthe Office of the JAG. The arrival of new military prosecutors required training,mentoring and supervision. In addition, a military prosecutor from the Western Regionwas deployed on a ten month secondment to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, inEdmonton.JAGNetDuring the previous reporting period, the members of DMP received web-based andclassroom conducted JAGNet training in preparation for the roll-out of JAGNet in thecurrent period. JAGNet is now being used on a daily basis by the members of the office.Although JAGNet has improved some aspects of electronic document organization, itdoes not provide prosecution case management software. Such case managementcapacity would improve the efficiency of the office of the DMP, facilitate the sharing ofinformation between the regional offices and DMP and would standardize casemanagement.Training and Policy DevelopmentTrainingRegular force military prosecutors, not unlike legal officers, are posted to their positionsfor a limited period of time – usually three to five years. As such, the training that theyreceive must support both their current employment as military prosecutors as well astheir professional development as officers and military lawyers. The relative brevity of amilitary prosecutor's posting with the DMP requires a significant and ongoingorganizational commitment to provide him or her with the formal training and practicalexperience necessary to develop the skills, knowledge and judgment essential in aneffective military prosecutor.3For more details about the court martial in R. v. Semrau see section Military Justice Proceedings below.
Given the small size of DMP, much of the required training is provided by organizationsexternal to the Canadian Forces. During the present reporting period, military prosecutorsparticipated in conferences and continuing legal education programs organized byfederal, provincial and territorial Heads of Prosecution, the Canadian Bar Association andits provincial affiliates, the Federation of Law Societies of Canada, the Ontario CrownAttorneys Association and various provincial law societies. These programs benefitedthe Canadian Forces not only through the knowledge imparted and skills developed butalso through the professional bonds forged by individual military prosecutors with theircolleagues from the provincial and federal prosecution services.DMP holds an annual workshop for its regular and reserve force military prosecutors.The one day workshop, held in the fall, is part of the annual JAG Continuing LegalEducation workshop.Military prosecutors also took part in a variety of professional development activities,including the legal officer intermediate and advanced training programs, and the officerprofessional military education program. Finally, in order to maintain their readiness todeploy into a theatre of operations in support of DMP’s mandate, military prosecutorsconducted individual military skills training such as weapons familiarization and first aidtraining.DMP also provides support to the training activities of other Canadian Forces entities.During the present reporting period, this support included the mentoring and supervisionby military prosecutors of a number of junior military lawyers from the Office of theJudge Advocate General, who completed a portion of their "on the job training" programby assisting in the prosecution at courts martial. Military prosecutors also providedpresentations to JAG legal officers, military justice training to members of the CFNIS,and served as supervisors for law students articling with the Office of the JAG.Policy DevelopmentDMP publishes all of its policies. These policies are reviewed regularly. This has been achallenge during this reporting period as the position of the officer assigned to this taskremained vacant.Finally, military prosecutors also play a role in the development of Canadian militaryjustice and criminal justice policy. The DMP continues to play a role in such effortsthrough his participation on a committee made up of the heads of all federal, provincialand territorial prosecution services.Military Justice ProceedingsThe nature of the operational tasks entrusted to the Canadian Forces requires themaintenance of a high degree of discipline among Canadian Forces members. Parliamentand the courts have long recognized the importance of a separate military Code of Service
Discipline to govern the conduct of individual soldiers, sailors and air force personneland prescribe punishment for disciplinary breaches.The Code of Service Discipline is designed to assist commanders in the promotion andmaintenance of good order, high morale, efficiency, discipline and operationaleffectiveness. To these ends, the National Defence Act creates a structure of militarytribunals as the ultimate means of enforcing discipline. Among these tribunals are thecourts martial and the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada (CMAC).During the present reporting period, military prosecutors represented the interests of theCanadian Forces and the general public in a number of different types of judicialproceedings related to the military justice system. These proceedings included courtsmartial, appeals from courts martial and reviews of pre-trial custody.Courts MartialDuring the reporting period, the DMP received 119 applications for disposal of a chargeor charges from referral authorities. When an application for disposal is received, amilitary prosecutor is designated to perform a review of the case. Following this review,charges are preferred to court martial. A decision not to prefer any charges to courtmartial was made in respect of 16 applications.For the period, 67 members of the Canadian Forces faced a total of 210 charges. Sixtynine courts martial were held.Out of the 69 courts martial held, 66 trials were held before a Standing Court Martial(SCM), composed of a military judge sitting alone. In addition, there were three trialsheld before a General Court Martial (GCM), composed of five Canadian Forces membersas triers of fact and a military judge as the trier of law. One GCM was partiallyconducted in Afghanistan.At the conclusion of 61 of the trials, the trier of fact made a finding of guilty in respect ofat least one charge. The remaining eight trials had not guilty findings on all charges.There were no instances where there was either a stay or a withdrawal of all charges.Appendix A provides additional information regarding the charges tried and the results ofeach court martial.While only one sentence may be passed on an offender at a court martial, a sentence mayinvolve more than one punishment. The 61 sentences pronounced by courts martialduring the reporting period involved 101 punishments. A fine was the most commonpunishment, with 49 fines being imposed. Seven punishments of imprisonment and sixpunishments of detention were also imposed by the courts. Of those 13; five weresuspended sentences, which means, in the context of the Code of Service Discipline, thatthat the offender does not have to serve out the sentence of imprisonment or detention.
The following court martial cases were of interest:R. v. Capt Semrau 4Capt Semrau was a member of the Operational Mentoring and Liaison Team assigned tothe 2nd Kandak (Battalion) of the Afghan National Army. In October 2008, during apatrol in Helmand Province, Capt Semrau fired his rifle into the body of a severelywounded suspected Taliban insurgent. Capt Semrau was tried by a General Court Martialon four charges: second degree murder, attempt to commit murder with a firearm,behaving in a disgraceful manner, and conduct to the prejudice of good order anddiscipline. As part of the proceedings, the court martial was partially held on location inAfghanistan. Capt Semrau was convicted on the charge of behaving in a disgracefulmanner and sentenced to dismissal from Her Majesty's service and a reduction in rank toSecond Lieutenant.R. v. BGen Ménard 5Brigadier-General (BGen) Ménard was the Commander of Task Force Kandahar. InMarch 2010 at Kandahar Airfield (KAF), BGen Ménard negligently fired two roundsfrom his rifle while readying the weapon prior to departing KAF. A Standing CourtMartial was convened and BGen Ménard pleaded guilty to a charge of neglect to theprejudice of good order and discipline pursuant to section 129 of the NDA. He wassentenced to a fine in the amount of 3500.00.AppealsDuring the reporting period the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada rendered adecision on seven appeals. Five appeals had been initiated by members of the CanadianForces who had been convicted and sentenced by court martial; two were initiated by theCrown.The following appeals cases are of particular interest:Ex-OS Ellis v. R. 6Ex-OS Ellis faced, before a Standing Court Martial, two charges of trafficking in cocaineand two charges of conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline for usingcocaine. Ex-OS Ellis brought a motion to challenge the constitutionality of the scale ofpunishments under s.139 of the NDA. Section 139 enumerates the kind and range ofpunishments that a military court can impose for a service offence. The military judgefound Ex-OS Ellis guilty on all charges, dismissed the constitutional challenge andsentenced him to nine months imprisonment.4R. v. Semrau 2010 CM 4010R. v. Ménard 2010 CM 10126Ellis v. R. 2010 CMAC 35
Ex-OS Ellis filed an appeal with the CMAC with respect to the legality of the sentenceand an application for leave to appeal the fitness of his sentence. At the CMAC, theappellant argued that s. 139 of the NDA and the sentencing regime in place violated theright to life, liberty and security of the person (section 7) as well as the presumption ofinnocence (paragraph 11(d)) and subjected then accused to cruel and unusual treatment orpunishment (section 12). The CMAC dismissed the appeal. The court concluded that theparticular facts did not support the constitutional challenge as the punishment ofimprisonment imposed was appropriate.Cpl Liwyj v. R. 7Cpl Liwyj was tried by Standing Court Martial on three counts of disobedience of alawful command under s.83 of the NDA. At trial, Cpl Liwyj argued that the orders thathad been given to him to adjust brakes in a specific manner were not lawful being himselfof the opinion that the method recommended was unsafe. Alternatively, he argued thathe did not have the necessary blameworthy state of mind when he disobeyed the orders.The SCM found Cpl Liwyj guilty all three counts, and he was sentenced to a reprimandand a fine of 750.Cpl Liwyj filed a notice of appeal and an application for leave to appeal the severity ofthe sentence with the CMAC. At the CMAC, the appellant argued that the judge erred infinding that the orders given to him by his superiors were lawful. The appellant alsoargued that the judge erred in deciding that his defence of mistake of fact had no “air ofreality”. The CMAC dismissed both grounds of appeal. The court did not interfere withthe military judge finding of fact that the safety issue was not obvious. The court restatedthat an unlawful order is an order that meet the high threshold of being manifestly illegal;an order that offend the conscience of every reasonable, right-thinking person, and an orderthat is obviously and flagrantly wrong. A mere disagreement between fair-minded personsas to the method best suited to get a job done in a particular set of circumstances would notreach that threshold. The court stated as well that the reasonable belief of the appellant thathe could disobey a lawful order simply because he personally considered it to be unsafewould constitute a mistake of law. Mistake of law is not a defence when it relates toobeying a manifestly unlawful command and it should not be when it relates to disobedienceof a lawful commandThe CMAC however varied the sentence imposed by removing the reprimand, leavingthe fine of 750.Cpl Wilcox v. R.Cpl Wilcox was charged with manslaughter, criminal negligence causing death, andnegligent performance of a military duty, all arising from an incident in Afghanistan inMarch 2007. Cpl Wilcox was convicted of criminal negligence causing death and ofnegligent performance of a military duty. The GCM panel stayed the manslaughter7Liwyj v. R. 2010 CMAC 6
charge. Cpl Wilcox was sentenced to four years imprisonment and dismissal from HerMajesty’s Service.Corporal Wilcox appealed the legality of the findings of the GCM and the severity of thesentence imposed by the judge. Among the grounds of appeal, Cpl Wilcox argued thatthe panel that tried him was not properly constituted. At the beginning of the GCM, themilitary judge had excluded a panel member and refused to replace him with an alternateon the ground that the law did not allow him to do so.The DMP conceded this ground of appeal. As a result, the Court ordered that the chargesbe retried at a new court martial.Capt Winters v. R. 8The charge at the origin of this case was brought under section 129 of the NDA for an actprejudicial to good order and discipline. Capt Winters had connected an unauthorizedelectronic device to the Defence network contrary to the intranet security directives andcaused the introduction of a virus in the computer network.At a Standing Court Martial, Capt Winters initially entered a guilty plea which wasaccepted by the military judge. During the sentencing phase the judge held that thealleged contravention was not to a regulation, as specified in the particulars of the charge,but to a directive. The judge decided it was not in the interest of justice for the Court toaccept the guilty plea. Having refused the requests of the military prosecutor for anamendment to the charge sheet or an adjournment to summon witnesses, the Courtpronounced a not guilty verdict.The DMP filed an appeal to the CMAC. In its decision, the CMAC held that s. 129 NDAdoes not create two distinct offences. Subsection 129 (2) of the NDA only creates apresumption of prejudice to good order and discipline as well as the existence of a causalrelationship between the act and the prejudice. The prosecution's loss of the benefit of thepresumption does not put an end to the prosecution and to the possibility of the accusedpleading guilty. The court also held that the military judge erred in his reasoning when heconcluded that he could not amend the charge sheet as requested by the prosecution andwhen refusing an adjournment. The CMAC restored the guilty plea and returned the caseto court martial for sentencing.Appendix B provides additional information regarding the appeals to the Court MartialAppeal Court of Canada.R. v. SzczerbaniwiczThe Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) rendered a decision in the appeal of LColSzczerbaniwicz that had been argued in the previous reporting period. 9 In that case, the8Winters v. R. 2011 CMAC 1
Custody ReviewsMilitary judges are, in certain circumstances, required to review orders made to retain aCanadian Forces member in service custody. DMP represents the interest of theCanadian Forces at such hearings. During the reporting period, military prosecutorsappeared at three pre-trial custody review hearing.Conclusion – DMP CommentsThroughout this year, the officers and supporting staff of the DMP from across Canadahave continued to deliver positive results. We have consolidated the gains in terms oftimelines from referral to preferral. There is still however some residual concern on thetimelines from charge laying to referral to DMP. Recent efforts on means to acceleratetrial scheduling processes have not completely resolve the issue of delay. It is also theintention of DMP to persist in pressing the previous initiatives to reduce court martialdelays that were identified in prior DMP Annual Reports. As we must deal with casescoast to coast we will seek to establish new regional offices. I intend to makesubmissions for the establishment of two additional regional offices in Borden, Ontarioand in Esquimalt, British-Columbia.Military prosecutors’ skills development through targeted professional initiatives,secondments, deployments and direct mentoring continues to be a priority. This isparticularly important for the many new prosecutors who have joined our service thisyear. This should help build the core competencies of our prosecutors and assist thisrelatively new organization to grow in maturity as it enters its second decade of existence,in a way that will better serve the interests of military justice and promote fair trialoutcomes.I am pleased with the achievements during the reporting period. I continue to be veryproud of our small yet remarkable team of civilian employees and military members. Ourefforts, in the years ahead, will continue to focus on enhancing the professionaldevelopment of our officers and ensuring that matters referred to DMP are dealt withwithout unreasonable delay.
Appendix ders atCMLocation ofCourt MartialLocation of OffenceCommandLanguageof Trial1GCMPte Browns. 90 NDAs. 129 NDAs. 130 NDA (s.267(b) Cr. Code)s. 97 NDAs. 130 NDA (266(a) Cr. Code)s. 85 NDAAbsent without leaveAn act to the prejudiceAssault causing bodily harmGuilty pleaGuilty pleaNot Guilty14 days detention (suspended)and 2400 fineDNAOrderGagetown,NBGagetown andOromocto NBCLSEnglishDrunkennessAssaultGuiltyGuiltyUsed threatening language toward asuperior officerUttering threatsGuiltyGuilty pleaGuilty pleaGuilty pleaGuilty plea30 days ,QuebecCLSFrenchSevere reprimand and 2000fineN/AGatineau,QCCEFCOMEnglishAn act to the prejudiceWilfully made a false declarationWilfully made a false declarationAn act of a fraudulent natureAn act of a fraudulent natureUnauthorized importation of firearms andammunitionGuilty pleaStayedStayedGuilty pleaGuilty pleaGuilty plea 300 fineReprimand and 300 fineN/AN/AKingston, ONAlouette, QCKandaharAirfield,AfghanistanKingston, ONCFB Bagotville,QCCLSCMPEnglishEnglish10 days detention and 2000fineN/ACourcelette,QCCLSFrenchWilfully made a false statementWilfully made a false statementAn act to the prejudiceWithdrawnGuilty pleaWithdrawns. 130 NDA (s.264.1(1)(a) Cr.Code)s. 85 NDAs. 85 NDA2SCMEx-PteDupuis3SCMCapt Jenner45SCMSCMSgt GalbraithCpl Kennedy6SCMCpl Fauchers. 90 NDAs. 90 NDAs. 97 NDAs. 129 NDAs. 129 NDAs. 125(a) NDAs. 125(a) NDAs. 117(f) NDAs. 117(f) NDAs. 130 NDA (s.104(1)(a) Cr.Code)s. 125(a) NDAs. 125(a) NDAs. 129 NDAUsed insulting language toward a superiorofficerUsed threatening language toward asuperior officerAbsent without leaveAbsent without leaveDrunkennessConduct to the prejudiceNot GuiltyNot GuiltyNot GuiltyAfghanistan andValcartier, QC
Appendix ders atCMLocation ofCourt MartialLocation of OffenceCommandLanguageof Trial7SCMSgt Taits. 85 NDAs. 86 NDAGuilty pleaWithdrawnReprimand and 800 fineN/AWinnipeg,MBCFB WainwrightCLSEnglish8SCMPte Rideouts. 84 NDAs. 130 NDA (s.267(b) Cr. Code)s. 87 NDAUsed threatening language to a superiorUsed provoking speech to a personsubject to Code of Service DisciplineUsed violence against a superior officerAssault causing bodily harmGuilty pleaStayedDismissal from Her Majesty’sServiceN/AOromocto,NBCFB Gagetown,NBCLSEnglishResisted an escort whose duty it was tohave him in chargeAssaultGuilty pleaGuilty pleaAbsent without leaveAbsent without leaveAn act to the prejudiceAn act to the prejudiceAn act to the prejudiceGuilty pleaGuilty pleaNot guiltyGuilty pleaGuilty pleaN/A 200 fine 1000 fineN/AN/AN/AMontreal, QCKingston, ONMontreal, QCCLSCMPCEFCOMFrenchEnglishFrenchSexual assault with a weaponWithdrawn 3000 fineN/AHalifax, NSCMSEnglishPersonating a police officerWithdrawnMontreal, QCKingston, ONKandahar,AfghanistanHalifax, NS/Hamilton,Bermuda / CFBBorden, ONAn act to the prejudiceSexual assaultGuilty pleaWithdrawnBreaking and enteringWithdrawnBeing unlawfully in a dwelling houseGuilty pleaBreaking and enteringWithdrawnBeing unlawfully in a dwelling houseGuilty plea91011SCMSCMSCM12GCMCapt WintersOCdt BakerCplL’HeureuxEx-OSHornells. 130 NDA (s.266 Cr. Code)s. 90 NDAs. 90 NDAs. 129 NDAs. 129 NDAs. 129 NDAs. 130 NDA (s.272(1)(c) Cr.Code)s. 130 NDA (s.130 Cr. Code)s. 129 NDAs. 130 NDA (s.271 Cr. Code)s. 130 NDA (s.348(b) Cr. Code)s. 130 NDA (s.349(1) Cr. Code)s. 130 NDA (s.348(b) Cr. Code)s. 130 NDA (s.349(1) Cr. Code)
Appendix ders atCMLocation ofCourt MartialLocation of OffenceCommandLanguageof TrialSexual AssaultWithdrawnWilfully made a false entryGuilty pleaSevere reprimandN/AEnglishN/ASt-Jean-SurRichelieu, QCCFB HalifaxCLSSevere reprimand and 3500fineSevere reprimand and 1500finePetawawa,ONHalifax, NSCMSEnglishN/AGatineau,QCValcartier, QCCLSEnglish 3500 fineN/AGatineau,QCCEFCOMEnglish 1000 fineN/AMontreal, QCKandaharAirfield,AfghanistanMontreal, QCCLSFrenchReprimand and a 1500 fineN/APétion-ville, HaitiVCDSFrenchMcCabe – Severe reprimandand a 4000 fineGibson – Severe reprimand anda 3000 fine30 days imprisonment and a 2000 fineN/AGatineau,QCPetawawa,ONChilliwack, BCCMPEnglishCourcelette,QCAfghanistan andQuebec City, QCCLSFrench13SCMCpl Gores. 130 NDA (s.271 Cr. Code)s. 125(a) NDA14SCMAS Andrist117(f) NDAAn act of fraudulent natureGuilty plea15SCMEx-SprSlusarchuks. 130 NDA (s.368 Cr. Code)s. 130 NDA (s.368 Cr. Code)s. 130 NDA (s.368 Cr. Code)s. 130 NDA (s.380(1) Cr. Code)s. 117(f) NDAs. 130 NDA (s.380(1) Cr. Code)s. 117(f) NDAs. 129 NDAUttering a forged documentWithdrawnUttering a forged documentWithdrawnUttering a forged documentWithdrawnFraudWithdrawnAn act of a fraudulent natureFraudGuilty pleaWithdrawnAn act of a fraudulent natureNeglect to the prejudiceGuilty pleaGuilty pleas. 114 NDAs. 116 NDAs. 129 NDAs. 129 NDAs. 129 NDAs. 129 NDAStealing while entrustedLost by neglect non-public propertyNeglect to the prejudiceAn act to the prejudiceAn act to the prejudiceConduct to the prejudiceWithdrawnGuilty pleaWithdrawnGuilty pleaGuilty pleaGuilty pleas. 130 NDA(91(2) Cr. Code)Unauthorized possession of a prohibitedweaponWithdrawn16SCMBGenMenard17SCMSgt Belanger18SCMCpl Beaulieu19SCMLS McCabbe/Cpl Gibson20SCMCpl TullyHebertN/A
Appendix A#TypeRank21SCMBdr Gray22SCMCpl EthierRoy23SCMCapt Day24SCM2Lt Bakker25SCMMCpl Louis26SCMCpl SmithOffencesDescriptionDispositions. 130 NDA (s.91(2) Cr. Code)s. 130 NDA (s.104(1)(a) Cr.Code)s. 129 NDAs. 130 NDA (95Cr. Code)Unauthorized possession of a restrictedweaponUnauthorized importing of a restrictedweaponWithdrawnAn act to the prejudiceUnauthorized possession of a restrictedweapon with ammunitionPointing a firearmStayedGuilty oflesserchargeGuilty erly occasioned a false alarmFalse alarm of fireGuilty pleaGuilty pleaGuilty pleaGuilty pleaGuilty pleaWithdrawnWithdrawnNegligent performance of a military dutyNeglect to the prejudiceNeglect to the prejudiceNegligent performance of a military dutyNegligent performance of a military dutyNeglect to the prejudiceNeglect to the prejudiceAbsent without leaveAbsent without leaveFraudWithdrawnGuilty pleaWithdrawnNot GuiltyNot GuiltyNot GuiltyNot GuiltyGuilty pleaGuilty pleaStayedAn act of fraudulent natureAn act of fraudulent natureGuilty pleaGuilty pleas. 130 NDA (s. 87Cr. Code)s. 114 NDAs. 114 NDAs. 114 NDAs. 114 NDAs. 114 NDAs. 75(g) NDAs. 130 NDA (s.437 Cr. Code)s. 124 NDAs. 129 NDAs. 129 NDAs. 124 NDAs. 124 NDAs. 129 NDAs. 129 NDAs. 90 NDAs. 90 NDAs. 130 NDA (s.380 Cr. Code)s. 117(f) NDAs. 117(f) NDASentenceOrders atCMLocation ofCourt MartialLocation of OffenceCommandLanguageof TrialSevere reprimand and a 2001fineN/AVancouver,BCVancouver,Abbotsford, andAldergrave BCCLSEnglishReprimand and a 1500 fineN/AGatineau,QCCF Station fghanistanCEFCOMEnglishSevere reprimand and a 2000fineSevere reprimand and a 2000fineN/AGatineau,QCGatineau,QCOttawa, ONVCDSEnglishGatineau, QCCLSFrenchSevere reprimand and a 2800fineN/ACFBGreenwoodCFB Greenwood,NSCASEnglishGuilty pleaN/A
Appendix ders atCMLocation ofCourt MartialLocation of OffenceCommandLanguageof Trial27SCMCpl SmithCFBGreenwoodCFB Greenwood,NSCASEnglishCpl Grégoire 600 fineN/AEdmonton,ABEdmonton, ABCLSFrench29SCMPte CampionWrightGuilty pleaGuilty pleaGuilty pleaGuilty pleaGuilty pleaGuilty pleaGuilty pleaGuilty pleaN/ASCMAn act to the prejudiceAbsent without leaveConduct to the prejudiceConduct to the prejudiceAbsent without leaveAbsent without leaveAbsent without leaveUnauthorized possession of a weaponReduction in rank (to private)28s. 129 NDAs. 90 NDAs. 129 NDAs. 129 NDAs. 90 NDAs. 90 NDAs. 90 NDAs. 130 NDA (s.91(2) Cr. Code)s. 130 NDA (s.266 Cr. Code)s. 86 NDA10 days detention (suspended)N/AEdmonton,ABCFB WainwrightCLSEnglishAssaultStayedFought with a person subject to the codeof service disciplineAssaultGuilty pleaReduction in rank (to2Lt) and a 1000 fineSevere reprimand and a 2000fine10 days detention and a 5000fineN/AKingston, ONCMPEnglishNorth Bay, ON/Borden, ilo, MBCEFCOMEnglishReprimand and a 1000 fine60 days detentionN/AN/ABorden, ONShilo, MBCFB Borden, ONAfghanistanCMPCEFCOMEnglishEnglishReprimand and a 1500 fineN/ACFB BordenCFB BordenCMPEnglishs. 130 NDA (s.266 Cr. Code)s. 86 NDA30SCMLt Paas31SCMLt(N) McInnis32SCMMCpl Elliott33
military prosecutor is designated to perform a review of the case. Following this review, charges are preferred to court martial. A decision not to prefer any charges to court martial was made in respect of 16 applications. For the period, 67 members of the Canadian Forces faced a total of 210 charges. Sixty-nine courts martial were held.
