And now for something not completely different

11/21/2023

On November 20, 2023, the Defence Minister (Canada), the Honorable Bill Blair, announced to CBC National News that the National Defence Act, in particular section 70, will soon be amended – "hopefully by the end of 2023", he added -- to transfer jurisdiction for the investigation and prosecution of “sexual assaults” [rape] from the military to civilian courts.

Courtesy of GMJR.

The change follows recommendations in the Arbor Report.

May 2022. Retired Justice Louise Arbour's Report recommends that sexual criminal offences be removed entirety from the jurisdiction of military tribunals

In her Independent External Comprehensive Review tabled in May 2022, retired Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour recommended the removal of sexual criminal offences from the jurisdiction of military tribunals

"Recommendation Number 5. Criminal Code sexual offences should be entirely removed from the jurisdiction of the military justice system, and that they should be prosecuted in civilian criminal courts. Where the offence takes place in Canada, it should be investigated by civilian police forces at the earliest opportunity. Where the offence takes place outside of Canada, the MP may act in the first instance to safeguard evidence and commence an investigation, but should liaise with civilian law enforcement at the earliest possible opportunity. Victims will be told to contact civilian police authorities directly, and such contact to be facilitated by the MP and the CAF so far as possible."

November 2023. Ministerial announcement giving full effect to Justice Arbour's recommendation to remove sexual criminal offences from the jurisdiction of military tribunals.

John

11/27/2023 19:40:56

This change in the United States would benefit the service member by requiring unanimous jury.

Old Hand

11/28/2023 22:36:21

I think this change would hurt the service member.

The Federal rules would result in much less discovery, and the feds view production very differently than the military.

Most Soldiers wouldn't be considered indigent, so probably there would be a financial cost to experts, and witness production.

My experience is also that federal judges are less defense-friendly than military judges.

I am also not convinced that a unanimous jury requirement with a hung jury possibility is more defense friendly than the current CM panel, but reasonable people can disagree.

Lastly, if there is no court-martial option the military would probably separate at indictment. Soldiers would be losing their jobs and not getting paid (which may solve the indigence concerns I guess).

Nathan Freeburg

11/29/2023 09:26:11

Leaving aside the unanimous verdict issue, it would result in a lot fewer cases being charged. So it would benefit accused service members in the aggregate a great deal.

(And, yes, it would be against my financial interest.)

John

11/30/2023 19:25:37

They can't separate without cause, but separation isn't a bad thing for the service member in this instance because it protects from additional courts martial charges.

If it would result in fewer charges what does that imply about the current system?

The service currently gives the most inexperienced as defense attorneys and the experienced as prosecutors. Smart accused hire defense in addition on their own money.

I think it is unreasonable to believe 12 unanimous jury members is inferior to most or of 5 that are a packed jury by pre screening.

Finally, there is a huge problem of jury pool poisoning by the "SHARP" TRAINING, which indoctrinates the potential jurors in incorrect concepts of consent.

Comments are closed.

CAAFlog

And now for something not completely different

Archives

Categories