Sexual Assault & Sexual Misconduct in the CF

[dapaterson]

DND has the burden of having to comply with the Privacy Act (see also DAOD 1002-6which states:


Note that the release authority under 8(2)(m)(i) is DAIP.

I expect that there are probably a half dozen legal opinions accessible to you that discuss how the act is to be interpreted within DND. There's a balancing of weighing of conflicting rights here that folks within DND are never comfortable with and, and who, as a result, tend to err on the side of the individual rather than the public interest.

I apologize for a lack of precision - the use of administrative action (covered by privacy protections) needs to be replaced with disciplinary action (which is public) for the protection of the profession. I suspect young Rory might have some opinions on this...

 

[Jarnhamar]

In this navy guys case it sounds like he has an 18 year "He's a good guy" defense.

 

[McG]

I apologize for a lack of precision - the use of administrative action (covered by privacy protections) needs to be replaced with disciplinary action (which is public) for the protection of the profession. I suspect young Rory might have some opinions on this...

Real professions do discipline in public.

 

[FJAG]

I apologize for a lack of precision - the use of administrative action (covered by privacy protections) needs to be replaced with disciplinary action (which is public) for the protection of the profession. I suspect young Rory might have some opinions on this...

Fully agree. I dislike drawing any conclusions based solely on a newspaper article - even one coming from a witness before a House of Commons committee but this sounds like a major failure within the CoC. Considering how many years its been there has probably been, at a minimum, a failure to document and follow through on multiple issues.

This is why I've always been a proponent of an office of an inspector general who reports on issues directly to the MND. IMHO an inspector general should be a retired officer of 2 or 3 star general rank.

 

[OldSolduer]

I apologize for a lack of precision - the use of administrative action (covered by privacy protections) needs to be replaced with disciplinary action (which is public) for the protection of the profession. I suspect young Rory might have some opinions on this...

Absolutely.

 

[Haggis]

Fully agree. I dislike drawing any conclusions based solely on a newspaper article - even one coming from a witness before a House of Commons committee but this sounds like a major failure within the CoC. Considering how many years its been there has probably been, at a minimum, a failure to document and follow through on multiple issues.

This is why I've always been a proponent of an office of an inspector general who reports on issues directly to the MND. IMHO an inspector general should be a retired officer of 2 or 3 star general rank.

So, a certain BGen former Land Force Inspector General would not be a good choice?

 

[OldSolduer]

So, a certain BGen former Land Force Inspector General would not be a good choice?

nnnnnnooooo

 

[markppcli]

Some of the CAF meme pages are reporting LT Patrick Whites NAVRES division, I suspect they’re trying to get the name of Officer X out in public.

This whole thing is an own goal, in trying to protect a member and their reputation the NAVRRS division in question has now created a public affairs shit storm. Had they followed proper disciplinary processes then the issue would have died at source.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Some of the CAF meme pages are reporting LT Patrick Whites NAVRES division, I suspect they’re trying to get the name of Officer X out in public.

This whole thing is an own goal, in trying to protect a member and their reputation the NAVRRS division in question has now created a public affairs shit storm. Had they followed proper disciplinary processes then the issue would have died at source.

Its amazing how we are so capable of self inflicted wounds.

This should have been fixed 14 years ago. Now it's an absolute mess and errordiing what's left in the confidence higher headquarters have left.

 

[OldSolduer]

Its amazing how we are so capable of self inflicted wounds.

This should have been fixed 14 years ago. Now it's an absolute mess and errordiing what's left in the confidence higher headquarters have left.

All goes to the point I tell my coworkers and all are very junior "when you fuck up, own it. Take responsibility for your fuck up and learn from it."

Not those exact words.....but the intent is there.

 

[Remius]

Disciplinary action against Class A Reservists is no easy task. I know it isn’t an excuse, just that the challenges that exist in that realm are numerous.

 

[markppcli]

Disciplinary action against Class A Reservists is no easy task. I know it isn’t an excuse, just that the challenges that exist in that realm are numerous.

I’m sure @FJAG will be in here shortly, but you can be charged as a Class A reservist, and you can be ordered to attend that charge. It’s not an easy task to charge anyone, but some times we have to be willing to do hard things. Some might call it leadership.

 

[Remius]

I’m sure @FJAG will be in here shortly, but you can be charged as a Class A reservist, and you can be ordered to attend that charge. It’s not an easy task to charge anyone, but some times we have to be willing to do hard things. Some might call it leadership.

Well aware. I didn’t say you could not be charged or ordered to appear. Just that there are plenty of challenges you won’t find in the regular force.

They have recently added a failure to appear charge in the NDA which is a good step to alleviate some of the issues.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Seems to be a culture in the military where units don't want to fire people in any sort of leadership role or who contribute to the operations side of things due to selfishness and laziness. Sacrificing the safety and mental health of a few members is worth while if it means keeping the high performer who shows up for summer training.

 

[Remius]

Seems to be a culture in the military where units don't want to fire people in any sort of leadership role or who contribute to the operations side of things due to selfishness and laziness. Sacrificing the safety and mental health of a few members is worth while if it means keeping the high performer who shows up for summer training.

I would posit along the same lines that it is probably also due to a culture of wanting to find the easy button.

 

[FJAG]

I’m sure @FJAG will be in here shortly, but you can be charged as a Class A reservist, and you can be ordered to attend that charge. It’s not an easy task to charge anyone, but some times we have to be willing to do hard things. Some might call it leadership.

It's never really been an issue with respect to charging a Class A reservists or compelling him to attend a trial. Class A reservists have been charged and tried before summary trials (under the old system) and courts martial for decades. I've prosecuted a few myself. I've never heard of any Class A reservist refusing or failing to attended before a service tribunal as ordered/required.

Well aware. I didn’t say you could not be charged or ordered to appear. Just that there are plenty of challenges you won’t find in the regular force.

They have recently added a failure to appear charge in the NDA which is a good step to alleviate some of the issues.

The problem is that the military complicates things (unnecessarily at times IMHO) and the administrative processes required to generate all the steps for a hearing or a court martial are harder to do in a part-time organization than a full-time one. It's the same challenge but more difficult to execute the processes.

S118.1 is not new. It has been around in various forms for quite some time. In addition there has always been a power to arrest an accused. The recent change to s 118.1 has to do primarily with the removal of the term "service tribunal" from the NDA and replacing it with the terms "judge" and "summary hearing." The intent with the last amendment is to turn the "summary trial" into a "hearing" so as to be more an administrative action rather than a judicial one.

 

[Remius]

It's never really been an issue with respect to charging a Class A reservists or compelling him to attend a trial. Class A reservists have been charged and tried before summary trials (under the old system) and courts martial for decades. I've prosecuted a few myself. I've never heard of any Class A reservist refusing or failing to attended before a service tribunal as ordered/required.


The problem is that the military complicates things (unnecessarily at times IMHO) and the administrative processes required to generate all the steps for a hearing or a court martial are harder to do in a part-time organization than a full-time one. It's the same challenge but more difficult to execute the processes.

S118.1 is not new. It has been around in various forms for quite some time. In addition there has always been a power to arrest an accused. The recent change to s 118.1 has to do primarily with the removal of the term "service tribunal" from the NDA and replacing it with the terms "judge" and "summary hearing." The intent with the last amendment is to turn the "summary trial" into a "hearing" so as to be more an administrative action rather than a judicial one.

The issues and challenges seem to be everything leading up to the trials. UDIs and laying charges. Not to mention some troops make more money during the whole process than the actual fines in a lot of cases. And the crossed lines of when being subject to the NDA or not and the effect that can have at the unit level.

 

[FJAG]

The issues and challenges seem to be everything leading up to the trials. UDIs and laying charges.

Yup

Not to mention some troops make more money during the whole process than the actual fines in a lot of cases.

That can be mitigated but it's not an invalid observation.

And the crossed lines of when being subject to the NDA or not and the effect that can have at the unit level.

s60(1)(c) clearly defines when a reservist is subject to the NDA. Part VII of the NDA (starting at s. 286 sets out various other situations where a military member can be tried by a civilian court when he is not directly subject to the NDA. If you think proceeding with a summary hearing or a court martial is a pain in the butt, you should give something like s. 294(1) Failure to attend parade a try some time. IMHO, the NDA needs some changes in regard to some (but not all) of these provisions.

 

[Remius]

Yup

That can be mitigated but it's not an invalid observation.

s60(1)(c) clearly defines when a reservist is subject to the NDA. Part VII of the NDA (starting at s. 286 sets out various other situations where a military member can be tried by a civilian court when he is not directly subject to the NDA. If you think proceeding with a summary hearing or a court martial is a pain in the butt, you should give something like s. 294(1) Failure to attend parade a try some time. IMHO, the NDA needs some changes in regard to some (but not all) of these provisions.

Agreed.

Oh it’s clearly defined. The issues arise when something happens outside the NDA that still has a direct impact at the unit and tools or lack of tools to deal with that. It takes creative work and creates risk at times when dealing with that, and the appearance of Justice being served.

 

[markppcli]

Well aware. I didn’t say you could not be charged or ordered to appear. Just that there are plenty of challenges you won’t find in the regular force.

They have recently added a failure to appear charge in the NDA which is a good step to alleviate some of the issues.

For clarity that leadership comment wasn’t supposed to come off as being at you in any way shape or form