"Unionizing" the CF (merged)

[McG]

How many times in a civilian court does ...

Again, a civilian court is a bad comparison.  If the offence and potential punishment are in a range where comparison to civilain court is apt, then the accused will have been offered to elect court martial.

The appropriate comparison, of a summary trial where no election is offered, is to the disciplinary hearings of a provincial medical or engineering association.  In these situations there may very well be familiarity and professional relations between the various involved parties.

 

[jeffb]

Although no presiding officer would like to be caught uttering the phase "march in the guilty *******" I'm sure it is the feeling before the trial at times.

Possibly although I have been involved in maybe 20 summary trials under half a dozen different Presiding Officers as both the Admin O and the Assisting Officer and that hasn't been my experience. What I have seen though is Presiding Officers recusing themselves because they have a history with the individual or know too much about the case. I have also seen three trials in which the member was found not guilty. Yes, most trials do result in convictions but that is also because charges that do not have an almost certainty of conviction get dropped at the UDI phase. When a member is found not guilty it's because the Investigating Officer on the UDI missed something in my opinion. Most charges also require a review by the A/JAG and come back with both pre-charge and pre-trial advice so there is a non-biased party double checking the process. 

These are just my experiences, and I accept that others may vary.

 

[X Royal]

I personally seen an individual sentenced to Club Ed for (60 or 90 days) without any real proof.
Police lineup was conducted at London Police HQ where 2 or the three civilian witnesses identified me as the guilty party. Luckily I was with the Base Commander at the time of the offense. BTW the third witness identified an other party that was not the convicted party. In any civilian court he would have walked due to reasonable doubt.
Although he may of been a guilty party a fair trial was not had.

 

[X Royal]

Would you expect the chain of command in a unit such as the one in the thread "Denial of Access to MIR By Unit" to make a fair decision on how to fairly conduct of a summary trial?

 

[George Wallace]

Would you expect the chain of command in a unit such as the one in the thread "Denial of Access to MIR By Unit" to make a fair decision on how to fairly conduct of a summary trial?

Would you expect the civilian courts and Justice System to make fair and knowledgeable decisions after what happened recently in St Albert with reference to allowing a vicious criminal like Shawn Rehn to still be out on the streets?

No one is perfect, no matter what court may be in session.  There will be injustices, but they are a rarity compared to number of times where justice has been served in a fair and civilized manner.

 

[X Royal]

George was the decisions made in St. Albert situation "fair and knowledgeable" or made under what was allowable under the existing laws?

 

[McG]

I personally seen an individual sentenced to Club Ed for (60 or 90 days) without any real proof.

No.  You saw no such thing at a Summary Trial.

 

[X Royal]

It may not have been a summary trial but it was conducted by the military in London without legal representation.
In the civilian system this would have never occurred & the individual would have been appointed legal representation.

 

[McG]

It may not have been a summary trial but it was conducted by the military in London without legal representation.

When did this happen?  Either your information is so old as to be irrelevant, or you are weaving a tall tale to bolster your argument.

 

[George Wallace]

George was the decisions made in St. Albert situation "fair and knowledgeable" or made under what was allowable under the existing laws?

Just as all decisions in a military judicial system is conducted under the Criminal Code of Canada, the Code of Service Discipline, the NDA, etc.  Any judgement that does not follow the full extent of the Laws of Canada, leaves the accused the recourse of a Grievance as laid out by our military rules and regulations.  This would expose the offending officer and result in that officer being charged. 

Life isn't fair, but we try to make it as fair as "humanly" possible.


In your "London" case, what recourse did the accused take if they felt they were wrongly tried?  Or is this just a myth?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

It may not have been a summary trial but it was conducted by the military in London without legal representation.
In the civilian system this would have never occurred & the individual would have been appointed legal representation.

No he wouldn't. Don't try and import US concept you heard of in TV shows to Canada.

Judges in Canada do not have the power to "appoint" counsel to unrepresented accused, nor do we have "public" defenders. If someone qualifies for Legal Aid lawyer and wishes to be represented, they will be, otherwise, if they wish to represent themselves, there is only one option (other than let it be) that is open to the Court: appoint an "Amicus Curiae", a friend of the court, which is basically a lawyer to help the Court deal with the unrepresented defendant by advising him, but only to the same extent that the Court itself could, which is only on the technical aspects of how to present your case before the court, not the underlying law.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Union != professional association.

A union's business is to lobby for things for its members and protect their interests.

A professional association's business is to lobby for the interests of the public the profession serves and enforce ethical standards and discipline among its membership (again, for the good of the public etc).

The same organization can not be trusted to properly serve both; a unionized occupation which meets customary criteria of a profession and aspires to professional status should have a professional association separate from its union, and in that case the key appointments of the association will probably have to be made by a third party (eg. provincial or federal government) since the union will inevitably try to persuade members to vote union-favoured candidates into professional association positions.

 

[X Royal]

When did this happen?  Either your information is so old as to be irrelevant, or you are weaving a tall tale to bolster your argument.

Around 1980. Yes dated but the system has not been completely revamped.
And in no way is this a tall tale.
If anyone who has spent more than a few years in our military believes things like this have not happened and have the possibility to happen again then they must be looking through foggy glasses.
And yes I've also seen the opposite happen where people have gotten breaks they never should have where others have been dealt with far more harshly for far lesser offenses.
When trials happen within unit lines there is way too many connections to be completely impartial. In many cases the accuser and the accused both work for the judge of the case. Also the appointed assisting officer is also in the same chain of command.

 

[McG]

... dated but the system has not been completely revamped.

It was completely revamped.  It happened in the '90s with much other post-Somalia modernization.
The reforms targeted excessive discretion of the chain of command and abuses such as you may have witnessed.

There are training requirements, obligations to consult lawyers and constraints upon presiding officers that did not exist in the days that you refer to.

Only a CO can sentence a soldier to detention up to no more than 30 days, and the CO cannot do that unless he has provided the soldier with an election to be tried by CM.  Prior to making the election, the soldier has a right to access defense council.  If the soldier does not feel he can get a fair trial in the unit, he can go in front of a judge with full legal representation. 

The system is not the one that you think you know.

 

[Tibbson]

It may not have been a summary trial but it was conducted by the military in London without legal representation.
In the civilian system this would have never occurred & the individual would have been appointed legal representation.

It "may not" have been?  That implies that you do not know first hand and as others have said your tale makes no sense whatsoever.  At a summary trial the accused has an assisting officer and given the level of any such charge that is appropriate.  If it was a Court Martial then there was legal representation. 

And yes, in a civilian court this happens all the time.  People often go to court over traffic offences and do not have a lawyer unless they wish to pay for one themselves. 

 

[Tibbson]

Around 1980. Yes dated but the system has not been completely revamped.
And in no way is this a tall tale.
If anyone who has spent more than a few years in our military believes things like this have not happened and have the possibility to happen again then they must be looking through foggy glasses.
And yes I've also seen the opposite happen where people have gotten breaks they never should have where others have been dealt with far more harshly for far lesser offenses.
When trials happen within unit lines there is way too many connections to be completely impartial. In many cases the accuser and the accused both work for the judge of the case. Also the appointed assisting officer is also in the same chain of command.

Firstly, the accused does not need to accept any appointed assisting officer and I've seen plenty of officers from outside a unit being asked to act as someones assisting officer. 

Secondly, when discussing the current state of the military legal system, you can't compare anything from 1980 to today.  Just off the top of my head I can note the following differences:

1)  JAG officers now review all charges that are laid in order to ensure they are worded correctly and in many cases COs consult with their legal advisors during the summary trial process to ensure they are making sound decisions;
2)  Decisions of summary trials are reviewed for correctness after the fact and presiding officers are called to task for any errors or omissions;
3)  Presiding officers must have taken training before they can act in that capacity
4)  More and more the accused is afforded full disclosure of all evidence before their summary trial so they can rebut the charge or formulate their defence.  This was never done before around 2008 never mind way back in 1980;
5)  Custody Review Officers are now in place to review any pretrial detention or release conditions applied to someone once charged, either by their CoC or by the NIS and there exists a mechanism to appeal any findings of the CRO if the accused does not agree and wishes to appeal;
6)  The Regional Military Prosecutor office was created to handle CM prosecutions;
7)  Defence Council Services has stood up totally separate from the RMP side of the JAG Branch (which are both separate from the other sections of the Branch)
8)  The Court Martial Appeals Court has continued to evolve and develop to the point where it is now a superior court;
9)  The NDA was overhauled in, I believe 1991 which created most of the above noted changes or at least codified them.

Your reliance on a faulty remembrance of an incident you heard about in or from the 80s is irrelevant unless you are speaking in context about things that (may have) happened in the 80s.

 

[X Royal]

And yes, in a civilian court this happens all the time.  People often go to court over traffic offences and do not have a lawyer unless they wish to pay for one themselves.

Speaking in an Ontario context how many traffic offenses (HTA) will occur jail time?
Yes some traffic offenses can be tried under the C.C.C. but HTA offenses don't bring those sentences.

 

[X Royal]

Your reliance on a faulty remembrance of an incident you heard about in or from the 80s is irrelevant unless you are speaking in context about things that (may have) happened in the 80s.

I admit my remembrance of the incident may not be 100% as time has passed but the basic facts I stated were 100% correct.
As I knew & worked with the accused and was part of the police line-up I more than just heard of the incident.

 

[Pusser]

How many times in a civilian court does not only the defendant, many of the possible witnesses  and the defender(assisting officer) of the accused work directly under the judge?
Before the trial would the presiding officer have access to the accused history far beyond what a civilian judge would have? In fact the presiding officer may already know the accused quite well. This may or may not work out in the accused favor.
Not a recipe for a fair and impartial trial IMO.
Although no presiding officer would like to be caught uttering the phase "march in the guilty *******" I'm sure it is the feeling before the trial at times.

I was involved in a Summary Trial where that was exactly the case.  We simply moved the trial to another unit and had a different CO hear it in order to remove bias.

 

[tomahawk6]

Military justice can be funny at times.I had a soldier transfer into the unit after he and several others were involved in a racial incident involving a firearm.The four white soldiers and a group of black soldiers were waiting to board a local bus to go into town.The black soldiers threatened the white soldiers and one of the white soldiers had a small handgun which he fired at one of the black soldiers hitting him in the buttock but otherwise nothing more serious.The MP's arrested everyone involved.The soldiers were offered a plea bargain or trial.The soldier that came to our unit was the only one that chose a court martial.He was acquitted.All others went to the Disciplinary Barracks at Ft Leavenworth.While at the post lockup awaiting a disposition of their case,the white soldiers were in the same jail cells as some of the black soldiers.Evidently they set aside their issues.Sometimes its better to take the trial.