FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 14,460
- Points
- 1,160
Military Justice Overhaul 2018 Bill C-77
- Thread starter FJAG
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 29,415
- Points
- 1,090
Interesting. Summary trials would become summary hearings, and punishments falling out of them would become sanctions, not punishments.
- Reaction score
- 5,124
- Points
- 1,160
I didn't see anywhere in there what items would be considered service infractions and not service offences.
- Reaction score
- 29,415
- Points
- 1,090
The initial summary states that the Act will "provide for the creation, in regulations, of service infractions that can be dealt with by summary hearing;". Specific text states "service infraction means a service infraction created by regulations made by the Governor in Council;"
In other words, the infractions would be set out in QR&Os. The QR&Os would be approved by the Governor General, as advised by cabinet.
My suspicion is that they would be the current minor infractions under that don't give rise to an election for court martial.
In other words, the infractions would be set out in QR&Os. The QR&Os would be approved by the Governor General, as advised by cabinet.
My suspicion is that they would be the current minor infractions under that don't give rise to an election for court martial.
FSTO
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 6,193
- Points
- 1,210
I may be totally out to lunch on this opinion, but aren't the majority of service offences of the type that the only "victim" is the Crown? Theft of property or money, absent from place of duty, failure to show up for duty, etc?
If it is a charge such as assault, rape, murder, then the case gets moved to the civil courts right?
Maybe its just my ingrained scepticism against any initiative put forward by a LPC government but I feel there is far more virtue signalling here than actual action.
If it is a charge such as assault, rape, murder, then the case gets moved to the civil courts right?
Maybe its just my ingrained scepticism against any initiative put forward by a LPC government but I feel there is far more virtue signalling here than actual action.
- Reaction score
- 1,898
- Points
- 1,090
Having read the majority of the bill, I think the effort is to align the language and practice of the NDA with similar language and practice in the civilian arena. This is a good thing. I think there's also an effort to provide protection for victims of alleged serious bodily harm offenses that did not previously exist under the NDA. Also a good thing, but it imposes a greater responsibility to safeguard the presumption of innocence. It remains to be seen what infractions are liable to be heard at a summary hearing. I think that it's probably a good thing that minor issues of discipline don't necessarily need to result in the requirement for a pardon later in life.
Notice that the purpose of the NDA is not justice:
Notice that the purpose of the NDA is not justice:
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 14,460
- Points
- 1,160
It would appear that the change from summary "trial" to "hearing" and service "offence" to "infraction" and "punishment" to "sanctions" is not just a change in terminology. The big change comes in s 162.7 which lists the "sanctions" available at a summary hearing which has eliminated the ability for a CO to give a sentence of any "detention" which he used to be able to do under s 163(3)(a). It was always my view that the weakness we had in the summary trial system was the CO's ability to give a sentence with "penal" consequences which IMHO triggered Charter safeguards which were not adequately protected by the summary trial procedures.
By severing infractions from offences and punishments from sanctions you have created a system whereby you are truly no longer dealing with a summary "trial" but a disciplinary hearing for minor infractions with minor consequences and therefore not Charter challengeable. It waits to be seen which of the offences will be transferred to the infraction category but it seems to me that the non electable ones are undoubtedly in there; possibly some other minor ones as well. What will be interesting to see is how we will eventually deal with the s129 Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline offence which was a catchall from the very minor to some significant events. It strikes me that s 129 needs to stay with the "offence" category but that something similar needs to be created as an infraction as well.
:cheers:
By severing infractions from offences and punishments from sanctions you have created a system whereby you are truly no longer dealing with a summary "trial" but a disciplinary hearing for minor infractions with minor consequences and therefore not Charter challengeable. It waits to be seen which of the offences will be transferred to the infraction category but it seems to me that the non electable ones are undoubtedly in there; possibly some other minor ones as well. What will be interesting to see is how we will eventually deal with the s129 Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline offence which was a catchall from the very minor to some significant events. It strikes me that s 129 needs to stay with the "offence" category but that something similar needs to be created as an infraction as well.
:cheers:
Similar threads
