All Things CAF and Covid/ Covid Vaccine [merged]

[PuckChaser]

I'd love a town hall with the JAG and VCDS to question this decision not to charge the major. It doesn't help at all the perception (real or not) that senior ranks aren't treated the same under regulations compared to the Jr ranks.

It just shows DMP is completely out of touch with the rest of the CAF. The public interest was not actually the public, it was actually in the interest of good order and discipline of the CAF to see that a Major was held to the same standard as a WO. The cynic in me thinks they only want to proceed with cases that are slam dunks so it doesn't tarnish their "stats". I honestly could care less if the Major was found not guilty because that's how the Military Justice system is supposed to work. But to toss the charges without any effort smacks of a double standard that is going to be hard for the CAF and DMP to shake. I'm willing to bet it will be mentioned in Topp's appeal.

 

[MilEME09]

VCDS holds no authority to order JAG or Dir Mil Prosecutions to proceed with charges. (JAG equally has no authority to issue such an order).

No but they would be briefed on the matter and could explain the rational

 

[dimsum]

Something something “Justine must be seen to be done” something something.

Who’s Justine?

 

[brihard]

Who’s Justine?

I think she’s the one advertising services in the shacks at Kingston?

 

[dimsum]

It just shows DMP is completely out of touch with the rest of the CAF.

Pedantic note: I can’t recall if DMP is actually part of the CAF or not. I thought all of the Legal stuff was purposely a separate chain from the CAF.

 

[markppcli]

Curse you autocorrect.

 

[dapaterson]

Pedantic note: I can’t recall if DMP is actually part of the CAF or not. I thought all of the Legal stuff was purposely a separate chain from the CAF.

It's complicated.

There is ongoing work to amend the NDA to grant greater statutory independence to DMP and to Dir Defence Counsel Services, creating them as GiC appointments.

Right now, there is friction over the potential for the CoC to have undue influence on the military justice system, hence the recommendations to reform it.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

It just shows DMP is completely out of touch with the rest of the CAF. The public interest was not actually the public, it was actually in the interest of good order and discipline of the CAF to see that a Major was held to the same standard as a WO. The cynic in me thinks they only want to proceed with cases that are slam dunks so it doesn't tarnish their "stats". I honestly could care less if the Major was found not guilty because that's how the Military Justice system is supposed to work. But to toss the charges without any effort smacks of a double standard that is going to be hard for the CAF and DMP to shake. I'm willing to bet it will be mentioned in Topp's appeal.

Or....

The CAF is completely out of touch with our legal system, internally and externally

 

[brihard]

I don’t really see this as a bigger issue with there being excessive prosecutorial discretion within CAF. Prosecutorial discretion in criminal matters is an important measure to protect the integrity of the system. It’s just that in this particular case the discretionary decision by the said prosecutor leaves a lot of us wondering “WTF?”. There’s a risk of a ‘baby with the bath water’ situation if one arguably bad call results in reforms with larger ramifications that undercut that independence. This might once again be the awkward overlap between professional discipline and criminal justice rearing its ugly head.

 

[PuckChaser]

I don’t really see this as a bigger issue with there being excessive prosecutorial discretion within CAF. Prosecutorial discretion in criminal matters is an important measure to protect the integrity of the system. It’s just that in this particular case the discretionary decision by the said prosecutor leaves a lot of us wondering “WTF?”. There’s a risk of a ‘baby with the bath water’ situation if one arguably bad call results in reforms with larger ramifications that undercut that independence. This might once again be the awkward overlap between professional discipline and criminal justice rearing its ugly head.

This "prosecutorial discretion" has just clearly outlined that counselling others in the CAF to overthrow the government as a commissioned officer is not a service offence. It was in the public interest to see this go to court, point blank. You're stretching to think that wanting a trial for this specific case is undercutting independence. I'd argue the direction to see significantly weaker cases go to trial for sexual misconduct (Fortin, Stalker, etc) do way more to harm prosecutorial independence than wanting to see this one go to trial.

 

[brihard]

This "prosecutorial discretion" has just clearly outlined that counselling others in the CAF to overthrow the government as a commissioned officer is not a service offence. It was in the public interest to see this go to court, point blank. You're stretching to think that wanting a trial for this specific case is undercutting independence. I'd argue the direction to see significantly weaker cases go to trial for sexual misconduct (Fortin, Stalker, etc) do way more to harm prosecutorial independence than wanting to see this one go to trial.

Read back on literally any of my prior replies and get back to me.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

This "prosecutorial discretion" has just clearly outlined that counselling others in the CAF to overthrow the government as a commissioned officer is not a service offence. It was in the public interest to see this go to court, point blank. You're stretching to think that wanting a trial for this specific case is undercutting independence. I'd argue the direction to see significantly weaker cases go to trial for sexual misconduct (Fortin, Stalker, etc) do way more to harm prosecutorial independence than wanting to see this one go to trial.

So, I am unaware of any published document stating why DMP dropped this case. None of us outside DMP know why they dropped it. For all we know, there could have been charter issues with the evidence. Or a Jordan issue. Or any number of other valid reasons. Or not.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on one’s point of view) this is what Prosecutorial independence looks like. Do we want the CDS to order DMP to prosecute certain cases? That is a certain way for a judge to toss a case, the second it arrives in front of them.

I agree this case is a bad look- but, the days of “march the guilty bastard in” are long gone. For good or ill.

 

[brihard]

So, I am unaware of any published document stating why DMP dropped this case. None of us outside DMP know why they dropped it. For all we know, there could have been charter issues with the evidence. Or a Jordan issue. Or any number of other valid reasons. Or not.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on one’s point of view) this is what Prosecutorial independence looks like. Do we want the CDS to order DMP to prosecute certain cases? That is a certain way for a judge to toss a case, the second it arrives in front of them.

I agree this case is a bad look- but, the days of “march the guilty bastard in” are long gone. For good or ill.

I’ll add a caveat- a Jordan or Charter issue would likely be described as “no reasonable prospect of conviction” rather than a lack of “public interest”.

 

[dapaterson]

Rory Fowler shares his thoughts...

Prosecution (or not) of public dissent and criticism in the Canadian Forces

Prosecution (or not) of public dissent and criticism in the Canadian Forces 17 December 2023 Military justice should be administered fairly and transparently. Military justice should not be administered arbitrarily. Military justice should not appear to be administered arbitrarily...

roryfowlerlaw.com

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I’ll add a caveat- a Jordan or Charter issue would likely be described as “no reasonable prospect of conviction” rather than a lack of “public interest”.

Thank you for that. Very good to know!

 

[brihard]

Thank you for that. Very good to know!

I obviously can’t be certain, just how I’ve seen the terms consistently used in other cases.