• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Military Justice

Essentially that's correct because that's where the precedents steered them. That said, I can't see why they simply didn't send it back to the sentencing judge to do a do over and get it right. That's a possibility in cases like this albeit that appeal courts do have the ability to substitute the "proper" sentence when they find error in the court below.

On the "what would industry do" standard I tend to agree that in most organizations this guy would be gone. That said there's the university crowd who have their own way of dealing with these types of situations which often turn to a "don't ruin a life" consideration. I sometimes think that universities with all their blooming hormones and hierarchical professor structure are more analogous to the CAF than industry in general.

🍻
I would have thought 180 days imprisonment was a good correct sentence FWIW.
 
I think it is more nuanced than just a binary one means civil prison vs using the detention barracks in Edmonton. Or rather we have the ability to use the detention barracks for both prison and detention It is a QR&O so it pretty legalesey but both appear to be options. Not sure if that is actually the current way of operating though

QR&O: Volume II - Chapter 114 - General Provisions Respecting Imprisonment and Detention

114.05 – COMMITTAL TO PENITENTIARIES​


(1) Subsections 220(1) and (2) of the National Defence Act provide:


“220. (1) A service convict whose punishment of imprisonment for life or for two years or more is to be put into execution shall as soon as practicable be committed to a penitentiary to undergo punishment according to law, except that a committing authority may, in accordance with regulations made by the Governor in Council, order that a service convict be committed to a service prison to undergo the punishment or any part of the punishment.
114.06 – COMMITTAL TO CIVIL PRISONS


114.06 – COMMITTAL TO CIVIL PRISONS​


(1) Subsection 220(3) of the National Defence Act provides:


“220. (3) A service prisoner whose punishment of imprisonment for less than two years is to be put into execution shall as soon as practicable be committed to a civil prison to undergo punishment according to law, except that a committing authority may, in accordance with regulations made by the Governor in Council, order that a service prisoner be committed to a service prison or detention barrack to undergo the punishment or part thereof.”
 
Two years less a day used to be the max for detention. Imprisonment was 2year and longer, and CAF personnel sentenced by CM to imprisonment did 2years at Club Ed first (a la Kyle Brown).
Admittedly, I have not paid attention to the CAF Legal system in 19 years so…

I had expected that any Sexual Assault cases would go to Civilian confinement / simply based on the fact that the CAF is supposed to be cleaning up the mess.
 
Serious question here:

If one is sentenced to "detention" is that The DB in Edmonton?

If one is sentenced to "imprisonment" is that a civilian facility?

"Detention" is a National Defence Act only punishment, there is no detention in the Criminal Code. If someone is sentenced to "detention", they cannot serve it in a civilian jail, prison or penitentiary. It is done in a "detention barracks". Club Ed is a "service prison" and "detention barracks".

Some definitions from the NDA that explain differences.


detention barrack means a place designated as such under subsection 205(1);

penitentiary
  • (a) means a penitentiary established under Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act,
  • (b) includes, in respect of any punishment of imprisonment for life or for two years or more imposed outside Canada pursuant to the Code of Service Discipline, any prison or place in which a person sentenced to imprisonment for life or for two years or more by a civil court having jurisdiction in the place where the sentence is imposed can for the time being be confined, and
  • (c) means, in any place outside Canada where there is no prison or place for the confinement of persons sentenced to imprisonment for life or for two years or more, a civil prison;

service convict means a person who is under a sentence that includes a punishment of imprisonment for life or for two years or more imposed on that person pursuant to the Code of Service Discipline;

service detainee means a person who is under a sentence that includes a punishment of detention imposed on that person pursuant to the Code of Service Discipline;

service prison means a place designated as such under subsection 205(1);

service prisoner means a person who is under a sentence that includes a punishment of imprisonment for less than two years imposed on that person pursuant to the Code of Service Discipline;

Service prisons and detention barracks
  • 205 (1) Such places as are designated by the Minister for the purpose shall be service prisons and detention barracks and any hospital or other place for the reception of sick persons to which a person who is a service convict, service prisoner or service detainee has been admitted shall, in so far as relates to that person, be deemed to be part of the place to which that person has been committed.


Who goes where and when.

NDA 220
Committal of service prisoners
(3) A service prisoner whose punishment of imprisonment for less than two years is to be put into execution shall as soon as practicable be committed to a civil prison to undergo punishment according to law, except that a committing authority may, in accordance with regulations made by the Governor in Council, order that a service prisoner be committed to a service prison or detention barrack to undergo the punishment or part thereof.

Committal of service detainees
(4) A service detainee whose punishment of detention is to be put into execution shall as soon as practicable be committed to a detention barrack to undergo the punishment.

Regulations concerning service prisons and detention barracks are found at QR&O Vol IV - Appendix 1.4 Regulations for Service Prisons and Detention Barracks

"(3) When a service prison or detention barrack contains service convicts or service prisoners as well as service detainees, the service convicts and service prisoners shall be segregated in so far as practical from the service detainees."

And the Notes to QR&O 104.04

NOTES

(A) Although specialized treatment and counselling programmes to deal with drug and alcohol dependencies and similar health problems will be made available to a person serving a term of imprisonment, a member serving a sentence that includes imprisonment will in most cases be considered unfit for further military service. As a result, service prisoners and service convicts will ordinarily not be subjected to the same regime of training that service detainees undergo. In certain cases, exceptions may be made for service prisoners serving a short term of imprisonment provided that it has either been decided to retain the member or no decision to release the member has been made but the circumstances suggest that retention in the Canadian Forces is likely. A punishment of imprisonment will be considered to be of short duration where the term does not exceed 90 days.

(B) Service prisoners and service convicts typically require an intensive programme of retraining and rehabilitation to equip them for their return to society following completion of the term of incarceration. Civilian prisons and penitentiaries are uniquely equipped to provide such opportunities to inmates. Therefore, to facilitate their reintegration into society, service prisoners and service convicts who are to be released from the Canadian Forces will typically be transferred to a civilian prison or penitentiary as soon as practical within the first 30 days following the date of sentencing. The member will ordinarily be released from the Canadian Forces before such a transfer is effected.


My reading of the CMAC decision is that it was not clear that the guilty corporal would be released from the CAF; especially since dismissal was "not" part of his sentence. Therefore, it's entirely possible that he could have served that sentence at the CFSPDB as a service prisoner. Now that it's been changed to 30 days detention, hello Edmonton.

The DB was a much busier place in the 1980s. While I didn't visit it as an inmate, we (the BHosp) did have a regular relationship. There was a 6B Med A (what's now called a PA) posted to 14 SPDB; when he was on away (leave, courses, etc), we had to provide a replacement. All the new detainees and prisoners were examined by our MOs as part of intake and the most unusual thing is that a specific in-patient room on our ward was deemed part of the DB for the purposes of holding detainees and prisoners admitted to the BHosp. It had been renovated as a secure, lockable suite.
 
My reading of the CMAC decision is that it was not clear that the guilty corporal would be released from the CAF; especially since dismissal was "not" part of his sentence. Therefore, it's entirely possible that he could have served that sentence at the CFSPDB as a service prisoner. Now that it's been changed to 30 days detention, hello Edmonton.

The DB was a much busier place in the 1980s. While I didn't visit it as an inmate, we (the BHosp) did have a regular relationship. There was a 6B Med A (what's now called a PA) posted to 14 SPDB; when he was on away (leave, courses, etc), we had to provide a replacement. All the new detainees and prisoners were examined by our MOs as part of intake and the most unusual thing is that a specific in-patient room on our ward was deemed part of the DB for the purposes of holding detainees and prisoners admitted to the BHosp. It had been renovated as a secure, lockable suite.

Not the 80s, but close enough for government work.

 
How did that title ever get past any review?! :ROFLMAO:

It was 1991. Different times. Overall, a reasonable depiction of the DB. Of the CF produced videos from that era, it is probably the only one that had a theatrical feel; voice overs, jailhouse lament tune, some mild swearing. As for the (faint) double entendre of the title, I seem to recall there was something about the "out door" being a unique feature in an inmate's experience. The DB staff was very open to familiarization tours of the facility; their philosophy being that if one saw how a sentence was served there, individuals would be less likely to take that path.

And from the same era, with some of the same cast



The current inmates may be more limited in the seriousness of their offences, but as mentioned in one of those news features, back then the DB housed (temporarily) even murderers. A couple of the more serious offenders from that time would likely have been the Van Doo who murdered his girlfriend in Hungary (see page 6 of this PDF) or the serial child sex offender who was awaiting "chemical castration" that he felt should be part of the "rehabilitation" mentioned as part of his sentence. (That last one did involve some negotiation between the DB and us as to who would pay for the travel to and fee for service at the one forensic psychiatric facility in Canada that did that procedure at the time - it was in Quebec. They wanted us to arrange and pay for the procedure, since it was "medical".)

As I was rewatching the In/Out Door video, I realized one of the other factors that would be different for the subject of the CMAC decision was pay. If he received a prison sentence, he would be subject to a forfeiture of "all pay" (QR&O 208.30) for each day that he was imprisoned. Under a sentence of detention, as an NCM, the forfeiture would be limited and he would still receive the max incentive for private.
 
Last edited:
Why do you say that? That was not the conclusion of his chain of command or the trial judge.

Do you have better information than they do? Has this person ever been your subordinate?

I get it- the guy was found guilty of sexual assault and I am not defending him, but you seem to be arguing facts not in evidence.
he sexually assaulted a co worker. That’s all the information I need to say fire him. I can’t think of any employer that would do anything different beyond the CAF.
 
he sexually assaulted a co worker. That’s all the information I need to say fire him. I can’t think of any employer that would do anything different beyond the CAF.
I say again, words twice: Universities; universities.

;)
 
SO lets say he did his time in DB and then had to finish his sentence in a civvy jail.

The result might not be very good. Despite our name "Corrections" we don't correct anyone, not even our own dunderheads.
 
Back
Top