Soldier fined for accessing pornography on duty

[JP4422]

http://nouzie.com/soldier-fined-1k-for-accessing-porn-on-dnd-computer-while-on-duty/

Thoughts?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

You're not allowed to display porn on DND assets. Nothing to think about.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Depends if an idiot friends sends you something and you open it unwittingly, then I don't consider it accessing it. Search and viewing porn on the work computer is just plain dumb. I had to tell a few of my buddies to stop sending inappropriate stuff to my work e-mail.

 

[Nuggs]

Considering the child pornography charge was dropped, I'd assume there was a bit more to this one.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Quirky]

This occurred in 2014 yet only convicted now? If the prosecution had no evidence or witnesses then why the guilty plea?

 

[PuckChaser]

This occurred in 2014 yet only convicted now? If the prosecution had no evidence or witnesses then why the guilty plea?

The child pornography charge was the one without sufficient evidence. Likely easier for him to save face and plead guilty to accessing pornography than have his name associated with the gritty details of whatever he accessed.

 

[garb811]

This occurred in 2014 yet only convicted now? If the prosecution had no evidence or witnesses then why the guilty plea?

As PC said, he pled guilty and there was a joint sentencing recommendation on accessing the pornography.  As a result of that, there would be an agreed statement of facts entered into the proceedings, and there is no requirement for either side to tender further evidence or call witnesses; both sides have already agreed to what has been presented to the court.  It doesn't mean the prosecution had nothing, in fact it actually implies it was sufficient the defence felt the best recourse was to do a deal.

 

[dapaterson]

Surprised he pleaded at all.  One would think that R v Jordan would have seen this tossed.  Four years to investigate a relatively simple situation, lay charges and proceed would seem to be outside the acceptable window.

It would be interesting to see the timeline for case, and it will interesting to see the ruling, once posted.

 

[Haggis]

Surprised he pleaded at all.  One would think that R v Jordan would have seen this tossed.  Four years to investigate a relatively simple situation, lay charges and proceed would seem to be outside the acceptable window.

Indeed it would, unless some of the delays were due to circumstances brought on by the accused.

 

[dapaterson]

Indeed it would, unless some of the delays were due to circumstances brought on by the accused.

Hence my interest in the timeline...

 

[Blackadder1916]

Surprised he pleaded at all.  One would think that R v Jordan would have seen this tossed.  Four years to investigate a relatively simple situation, lay charges and proceed would seem to be outside the acceptable window.

It would be interesting to see the timeline for case, and it will interesting to see the ruling, once posted.

As per the post in the big sexual misconduct thread, this soldier was charged on 9 Nov 2016, so it was 17 months from charges to completion.

https://army.ca/forums/threads/478/post-1463080.html#msg1463080

On November 9, 2016, the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service charged a military member of 5th Canadian Division Support Group with two counts under the National Defence Act in relation to accessing child pornography.

The charges relate to reported accessing of child pornography while the accused was on duty at 5th Canadian Division Support Base Gagetown between June 26, 2014 and September 22, 2014.

Sergeant Brent Douglas Hansen faces the following charges:

    one count of Accessing Child Pornography under section 163.1(4.1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, punishable under section 130 of the National Defence Act; and
    one count of Conduct to the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline, punishable under section 129 of the National Defence Act.

 

[dapaterson]

Two years to investigate seems lengthy.  That said, 17 months, charge to conviction, is getting to the edge of Jordan, but not over.

 

[WEng87]

Completely off topic...  But my god that Defense Lawyer has one terrible beard!!  I know a few Coxswain's that would lose their minds over someone considering that a "Beard".  :rofl:

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Completely off topic...  But my god that Defense Lawyer has one terrible beard!!  I know a few Coxswain's that would lose their minds over someone considering that a "Beard".  :rofl:

Proof that any thread on army.ca can be turned into a dress thread...

 

[WEng87]

Proof that any thread on army.ca can be turned into a dress thread...

You're right, especially when there's pictures of someone in uniform....  we all find something wrong in some way or another...  we're all institutionalized I tell ya!

 

[brihard]

Surprised he pleaded at all.  One would think that R v Jordan would have seen this tossed.  Four years to investigate a relatively simple situation, lay charges and proceed would seem to be outside the acceptable window.

It would be interesting to see the timeline for case, and it will interesting to see the ruling, once posted.

Jordan doesn't consider time spent prior to charges being filed. IT's purely from the laying of charges til the conclusion of matters. It's also not a strict 18 (or 30) month rule; it basically only ticks the clock for time accruing due to the judicial/legal/law enforcement systems. If defense requests and adjournment for something that's totally separate from that, it wouldn't count. It's more intended to ensure things like timely disclosure, and that courts don't have free reign to let waiting times for trials grow and grow and grow.

One of the impacts is that in larger files, crown and police won't lay charges until they are damned sure they're pretty much all the way there AND can get materials promptly disclosed, whereas in the past charges may have been sworn earlier on once crown and police were sure they had the charge, but while there was still much work to do.

 

[FJAG]

Completely off topic...  But my god that Defense Lawyer has one terrible beard!!  I know a few Coxswain's that would lose their minds over someone considering that a "Beard".  :rofl:

Sigh. That's my old branch.  :facepalm:

:cheers:

 

[Halifax Tar]

Completely off topic...  But my god that Defense Lawyer has one terrible beard!!  I know a few Coxswain's that would lose their minds over someone considering that a "Beard".  :rofl:

Wanna bet there is a medical chit behind that glory ?