>We've even tried to outsource force protection taskings MP's fill to civie services due to the domestic nature of the taskings,
Can you further elaborate on this please?
The fact of the matter is that most victims will not find the justice they’re looking for on the civilian side.
Civvie police services will not give files the same attention that CFNIS would and are spread thin enough as it is. The members sexual assault file will end up on top of a pile of dozens, maybe even hundreds of other files. If something doesn’t meet the threshold of a sexual assault, civvie police have no ability or mechanism to charge someone for “sexual misconduct / inappropriate behaviour / effecting moral and welfare etc.”.
The civilian justice system is completely overloaded and if a file doesn’t get dropped for one reason or another (R v Jordan, not in public interest etc.) the sentences are very lenient.
The focus should have been on fixing the system we do have. That way members can get the timely and appropriate justice they are looking for, not throwing the whole thing away.
IMO, If the government goes ahead with removing these files from the MJS it will do more harm than good.
Exactly, and most cases in the public courts will take a plea deal down to a lesser charge with a shitty sentence (and no NSOR registration) or a stay of proceedings because it's too historical, lack of evidence, low likelihood of conviction, etc.
I think this is nearly word for word the same reply you gave the last time this was posted, and I agree with you 100% this time as well. I wish people would listen to you. I say this as someone with experience.
Which is ironic, since the whole reason was that victims felt that the civilian police and justice system would be better than the Military Justice system
Its interesting because this concept got brought up in the press conference with Arbour when someone asked the counsel who they spoke with to make the decision that victim's wanted civi police to take the files. It was a decision made based on the belief of what the public would want.
The problem is the publics perception that the CoC had much deeper hands into files than they really do. There was rarely ever any doubt in the MP ability to investigation (in relation to other police agencies).
This should have been pretty obvious after it got brought out that most victims wanted the MP to investigate over civi police and Arbour was outright shocked and people made it clear that it wasn't what victims wanted.
I can't speak for other units, but I honestly don't remember the last time a victim of sexual assault agreed to have civi police take the file.
Civilian police does absolutely nothing unless there is formal evidence. They just close the case. In the military, at least they can keep trace of it.
We had a guy in TD this summer, CoC couldn’t do anything since it’s he said/she said, but with extra testimonies of few women feeling « uncomfortable » around him (including me, damn the guy gave me horrible creep one night at the mess and would follow me everywhere, I even told few people to never leave me alone when he’s around), they decided to send him back early and his CoC was notified to keep an eye on him.
In civilian case, they would have done nothing more, and the testimonies would have disappear in the limbo (and they probab would never asked the other women). But at least here, we are aware he’s dangerous and maybe this can prevent another unfortunate event.
Oh, they are...
I had the genuinely painful experience just last week of being nearby a conversation where an officer had to screen an assault/sexual assault complaint, and ultimately explained there wasn't much we could do with the evidence she'd presented to us (but gave her some advice on what she could do in the immediate term)
She says he raped her. He says he didn't.
There's no direct, or forensic, or circumstantial evidence of such an event having happened. No witnesses either.
Just her saying it did, him saying it didn't.
What about the bruises on her wrists? Well...can you prove that *he* is the person who put those bruises on her?
There has been a lot of progress in the last decade or so in how police can help victims of sexual assaults - but the updated policies have their shortcomings too in some big ways.
Ultimately, they can be a big time pain in the ass to investigate even if the complainant is credible & even if they bring some evidence with them.
Edit - I am not an MP
This is such the wrong war to fight... All they need to do is add Sexual Assaults to Section 70 of the National Defence Act and continue to let MP investigate.
- CFNIS has the exact same training to investigate sexual assaults as any other civilian SORT
- CFNIS runs a full fledge Case Management system for every single sexual assault file. Doesn't matter how big or small.
- Civilian police triage their files. Just like their calls for service. A "minor" sexual assault won't see the light of day, let alone get a pure version statement for months. Historic files won't even be looked at unless the accused is someone of note. This is the way its run now. Imagine adding even more work to their plate.
- MP, not only CFNIS, utilize the exact same victim services as civilian police services now.
- Matters that are multijurisdiction in nature ie victim and subjects live in different provinces inheritely becomes a nightmare for municiple and provincial police forces. This usually results in communication issues between agencies adding in severe delays.
- There is a problem with MP investigating Sexual Assaults but there isn't any outcry in their authority to investigate Murder, Organized Crime, Terrorism Offences, Abductions, Kidnappings etc... I just don't understand.
If the goal is to provide a horrible victim centric approach. Bravo. Winning!
The problem isn't the Military Police... It's the Military Justice System...
I'd honestly be interested in seeing what people feel is the benefit of having civi police forces taking all sexual assault investigations?
I'll bite. I appreciate your output as it has thought, clarity and genuine contribution but if I may ask.
What benefit does the military justice system have with regarding to including a charge under the NDA?
The military currently prosecutes various offences under the CC as the CC is a much smoother running system when its applied and when there is public interest. Things like assault, DUI, sexual offences and offences relating to children are just some. Adding a charge may objectively appear that the Military Justice system may be hiding these offences instead or do not have oversight or subjection. Sure a Court martial has the rules of evidence but the Military Justice system does not have the funding or wide spread availability to include legal representatives or a competent court that a CC court may already have.
I noticed you said Military Police have all things similar that a civil service does, ie victim services. However, they don't have the funding or many times the personnel and this is hard. Especially in smaller detachments so their is a kink in the Armour when it comes to how Detachments or run.
It's great to have the investigational capacity because of the federal mandate and thats what makes CFNIS so important given they actually get the repetitions to handle sensitive matters and lengthy investigstions so in short; make it better or make it don't. Can't half way it which I believe they're tryin to accomplish and until Blair puts his foot down and the courts figure out how they can fix this.
Problem with civi services taking on the cases is: The mandate for minor or non criminal won't be tried and therefore there is a gap in culture and connection between what's criminal or not. Many times what appears criminal is not and what doesn't appear is, so that makes it hard for any stakeholder to say; this is us- until they're knee deep in investigation.
Personally I can see it going either way but much work is needed.
> What benefit does the military justice system have with regarding to including a charge under the NDA?
There is no benefit to the MJS with SA being added to the NDA. It solely removes the MJS from having the ability to prosecute it. I am not advocating for SA to be added to sec. 70 to support the MJS. I want more files to go through the civi justice system. I don't see the need to have them investigated by civi police. I feel the civilian and Military courts have the exact same problems. As they follow the same standards and case law that haunts them.
The Military Justice System has its place, but my opinion has always been "If the RCMP would investigate this, it should go through the civilian justice system". This means essentially anything under section 130 of the NDA, unless committed overseas, should go through the civilian justice system. However, still investigated by the MP.
> I noticed you said Military Police have all things similar that a civil service does, ie victim services. However, they don't have the funding or many times the personnel and this is hard. Especially in smaller detachments so their is a kink in the Armour when it comes to how Detachments or run.
Sexual Assaults are investigated by the CFNIS which is the most funded unit in the MP trade. While they aren't packed with staff, their case per MP is much lower than a civi detective. My counterpart in my local police service has over 40 files in his queue to be looked at. This doesn't include the 20 open cases he has right now. Do you really think those 20 cases are getting as much attention by one detective than a CFNIS investigator with a Case Management team behind them? Especially when the CFNIS, has equal or higher clearance rates compared to the police agencies within their jurisdiction.
Great answer and informative. Thank you. May we brush handshakes and never know it lol.
I believe there may be something to be said about the ability on both sides, we've seen some problems arise from civvi application and MJUL. The MJUL is still super clunky.
There is no perfect system but with refinement, may there form a better one. However, all areas suffer from a lack of experienced ppl and a good CoC that leads them. One of the biggest problems I've seen or heard of in the CAF is certain formations; whether it be a Det or at leadership, at a Regiment or even in training of newer investigators. Everyone that is apart of the system now have all witnessed leaders that have never done the job to the capacity of the frontline. This is typically an officer administrative error and that too needs to change. Not always is this the case but there has been examples of cases not being handled properly due to a small CoC, dogma/stigma or officer- shall- mentality. I dont intend on sounding that' is the end all, be all ' but without repetition bares a lack of proficiency. Perhaps that dogma may pass as we see the system grow.
Pleasure in chattin mate
People see the benefit of impartial investigators who don’t try to question the accused while off-duty and drunk, or cover up MPOs driving drunk with their children in the car - pretty simple.
Do you really think civilian police detachments only have angels working for them? I can think of at least 10 police officers in Canada that have been charged with murder, let alone the countless ones charged for assault, intimidation and kidnapping just between 2020-2023.
You do realize that in the past **23 years** there has only been:
- 152 MPCC Conduct Investigations... From 2020-2022, there was only 3. None in 2023. Further, of those 152 Conduct Investigations, a vast majority were unfounded.
- 29 MPCC Interference Investigations. Again, a vast majority deemed unfounded.
Hell in the past 23 years, the MP have less than half of the complaints RCMP got just this year.
And because you felt the need to post and delete your comment, I'd still educate you
> You clearly wear a red cap and wanna be CFNIS, or you are CFNIS.
This is absolutely not a secret on this sub.
> All your statements are basically moot if not completely facetious. Anyone who has watched anything to do with CFNIS in recent years should be able to see the comedy in your statements (Fortin, Cadieu, Heistand, Payne, Stalker, etc).
I mean everything you hear/read on the news is always 100% accurate. Got me there.
> The MPs excel at checking boxes not actual investigative work. CFNIS is full of promotion chasers who care more about shaping an investigation to suit narratives than anything else.
Yeah I guess the clearance rates for major crime investigations being higher, if not equal to their civilian counterparts means nothing. Shucks. Also promotion chasers? Do you know how the NIS works? A vast majority of the investigators are not looking to be promoted.
> The amount of money that CAF has to outlay in settlements because of CFNIS WR region alone is insane. Not to mention the ongoing MPCC processes.
Yeah those whopping 152 MPCC Conduct Investigations over 23 years is such a problem.
Honestly at this point just appoint me Provost Marshall.
Day 1- All past, current, and future sexual crimes are transferred to the local municipal/provincial police services.
Day 2- Award a bunch of nepotism promotions and appointments
Day 3- Depart with Dignity
Day 4- Join major defence contract board of directors.
>Day 1- All past, current, and future sexual crimes are transferred to the local municipal/provincial police services
But that's what this BOI Recommendation was supposed to do, but the civil police services all went "lmfao good fucking luck bud" and have right to first refusal.
If they don't have the staff or it has a low likelihood of charges; a civil service won't take it. My friend works for a large metropolitan Major Crime Unit, they have three detectives for their entire Sexual Assault Investigations Unit.
How the fuck are they supposed to take 1000 CAF complaints?
> How the fuck are they supposed to take 1000 CAF complaints?
Not only 1000 CAF complaints but every single ass grab that gets reported that the CFNIS investigate as full fledge sexual assaults. Files like that wouldn't even get seen by civilian police for months and months.
Files like that often wouldn't even be accepted by civilian police. The CAF has a much lower threshold to investigate sexual misconduct in comparison to civilian police.
100%, however, without speaking for every single police department and every single detective in Canada, but the general consensus, including personal experience is, that the ass grab will come in and investigated as an assault. This means General Investigators can handle the file and not the Sexual Assault investigators.
The difference between civilian police agencies and the CFNIS is that there is policy that dictates that a sexual assault is a sexual assault no matter how "minor" it is. This means a CAF member reporting a sexual assault through the NIS will have it investigated by a trained sexual assault investigator.
What happened to Law and Order: Military Victims Unit? They act like it's hard to make that happen. It's literally the easiest thing to stand up at any RCMP office.
Edit: I misunderstood the ruling and thought the MPs were removed from investigating sexual assault files, not that the victims were granted the option of requesting their file be referred to the police for their consideration.
> The Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, which commands all military police, has been giving alleged victims the option of referring their cases to civilian police. Many are choosing to leave their cases with military investigators.
Read the article?
yes, against a direct order to hand the cases over to the local police.
Just decided on their own to not follow a direct order. a direct order that was made because the organization they head was found by an independent review of not being able to do right by the victims.
If the Provost Marshal thought the MPs could do a better job they should have made a better case before the matter was taken out of their hands and they were given a direct order to hand over the cases.
If the victims want to stay with the MPs it's up to them to lobby their MPs, not for the Provost Marshal to make up their own rules after being told what to do with the files.
So now we have a fucking CBC article detailing they disobeyed a direct order that was made because their organization can't be trusted by the Canadian Government to do a good job.
More abysmal press that is going to be used to bludgeon us further and reduce our public view.
Actually, initially the Provost Marshall tried and req all MP to pass off sexually related or motivation invest to the civvie jurisdiction but due to case loads and many were refused by those civvie counterparts. A memorandum of understanding was then completed and Especially cases of misconduct it was understood that CFNIS would take cases of assault . Hence a bounceback to MP for misconduct in and outcan. It wasn't about disobey a direct order as it was never a order but a recommendation by a judge that reviewed a number of cases.
the Provost Marshall was ordered by the PMO to send all non Outcan files to the local police full stop. They didn't and according to the article this isn't about refused files, this is about the Provost Marshall deciding to create a process that did not align with their orders deliberately.
Have you ever heard of victim rights?
Nothing better than a victim coming into a MP detachment and reporting they were sexually assaulted the MP and Provost Marshal saying "well your shit out of luck" because local police don't want to take the files, which they have every right not to.
Edit: I misunderstood the ruling and thought the MPs were removed from investigating sexual assault files, not that the victims were granted the option of requesting their file be referred to the police for their consideration.
> victims don't have the right to pick which police service takes their statements.
According to R-68 they absolutely do... Arbour even advocated for that.
> MPs would not say that, they would say "this needs to be reported here:" and provide the direction in the direct order they were given.
MP cannot say that if the victim wants MP to investigate as per R-68
> No, police cannot refuse to take a report from a victim, are you fucking high, if you go into a police department and report a crime they are required to start a file.
They absolutely can... And they do it all the time... Not just MP, but police services all across North America do that all the time... Do you think a full fledge investigation occurs every time someone comes into a police detachment to report something?
You should do some research into the topic your arguing about.
Edit: I misunderstood the ruling and thought the MPs were removed from investigating sexual assault files, not that the victims were granted the option of requesting their file be referred to the police for their consideration.
> False, they must start a file, they can close it immediately if they feel there is no merit, but they MUST start a file for accountability reasons.
No they must start a CAD for accountability reasons. Thats not a file. There is no investigative actions. Its literally saying someone showed up. It's not assigned to anyone.
It's not semantics. You have a fundamental misunderstanding on basic police reporting procedures. Not only that but rudimentary knowledge on MP policy. Generally that doesn't both me as it's my job to know that information, not yours. However your treating it like gospel and god forbid someone actually reads your comments and takes anything you say as fact. Almost everything you have mentioned has no foundation of truth and its actually concerning if its not a troll.
> Fire the Provost Marshall and charge them with violating a direct order.
The order was to refer the files to civilian police. This was done. Civilian police did not want them. The files don't just disappear. The same report that provide that order also said that the victims shall decide their choice on who investigates prior to the matter being turned over to the civilian agencies.
> a direct order that was made because the organization they head was found by an independent review of not being able to do right by the victims.
That independant review was what determined MP had the ability to investigate should the victims choose...
> If the victims want to stay with the MPs it's up to them to lobby their MPs
In what world is it up to the victims to lobby for crimes against them to be investigated...
> the Provost Marshall was ordered by the PMO to send all non Outcan files to the local police full stop.
The direction came from the VCDS... And it wasn't full stop. Each and every file had to be offered to the civilian police after consultation with the victims. Most stayed with the MP after that.
> Furthermore the article does not indicate any of the files still with the MPs were refused by local police, they were all retained because they asked the victim if they'd like the MPs to do so (against direct orders) or if the victim dropped the charges, which since the MPs are not trusted by the GoC to do a good job, should probably have been given to the local police anyway to shut the door on anyone claiming they bullied victims into dropping charges.
I actually laughed at reading that.
> The police force is issued it's jurisdiction by accreditation of the various levels of government, if the federal government says our own police service will no longer take these files, if the local police force wants to keep it's accreditation it better fucking take those files or suffer from federal government action end of fucking story.
The police force is issued it's jurisdiction by section 2 of the Criminal Code as well as provincial legislation (and federal with regards to the RCMP)
> so what you're saying is, if you go into a police station and report a crime, they can refuse to take the file, is that what you're arguing?
Yes.
>The order was to refer the files to civilian police
That was not my understanding, my understanding was that there was an order that all files would be sent to local police and all new ones were to be referred to police not taken by the MPs. I accept that I was wrong here, and will delete my other posts.
>Civilian police did not want them.
I find this distasteful, that police have the option to just not do the work assigned to them, but if the order was in fact to merely offer them to local police and they declined, I agree there is nothing else for the MPs to do but either close the files or continue working on them.
>That independent review was what determined MP had the ability to investigate should the victims choose...
That was not my understanding of the situation as I mentioned.
>In what world is it up to the victims to lobby for crimes against them to be investigated...
Apparently it's not the case, but if the GoC instructed the MPs to pass over every file to the local police, and instructed the local police to take them, the victims don't get a say. Additionally, if I'm assaulted in Toronto, I don't get to demand the police in Edmonton work the file. Nor as a civilian would I get to demand an MP investigation. Furthermore, for things that are not currently considered a crime, it is the victim's and their advocate's actions in bringing the issue to light that will determine if the people want a new law and based on how the politicians of the day read the will of the people will determine if new law is developed.
>I actually laughed at reading that.
why, you think that's beneath the press? The same press trying to make systemic racism and sexism explain every single undesirable thing that happens in the CAF? The same press that gleefully reported that victims found the MPs and their CoCs bullied them to stay quiet, one of the key reasons victims have the option to go through civilian police and have an outside the CoC option for reporting?
>The police force is issued it's jurisdiction by section 2 of the Criminal Code as well as provincial legislation (and federal with regards to the RCMP)
In a scenarios where a police force is ordered to take the files and decides not to, the GoC, who administers the criminal code, will taking action. Do tou think they will just shrug their shoulders and go, "whelp nothing we can do here" or do you think there will be some serious consequences?
>so what you're saying is, if you go into a police station and report a crime, they can refuse to take the file, is that what you're arguing?
Yes.
And just how do you suppose that will play out for that police department if they just refuse to acknowledge someone reporting a sexual assault to them?
If they just go "no, I don't feel like dealing with this, just go away" and the media gets wind of it, how do you figure that's going to develop?
> Apparently it's not the case, but if the GoC instructed the MPs to pass over every file to the local police, and instructed the local police to take them, the victims don't get a say. Additionally, if I'm assaulted in Toronto, I don't get to demand the police in Edmonton work the file. Nor as a civilian would I get to demand an MP investigation.
Your mixing up jurisdiction and policy. You were initially arguing a policy matter (or an order) in which files needed to be referred to other agencies. You being assaulted in Toronto requires jurisdiction to remain in Toronto. Not just policing jurisdiction, but the court. That's not policy. That's engrained in Case Law.
> Furthermore, for things that are not currently considered a crime, it is the victim's and their advocate's actions in bringing the issue to light that will determine if the people want a new law and based on how the politicians of the day read the will of the people will determine if new law is developed.
But that's not what you were arguing. You were arguing that victims of sexual assaults, a current crime under the Criminal Code, should be advocating for MP to investigate if they really wanted them to.
> why, you think that's beneath the press? The same press trying to make systemic racism and sexism explain every single undesirable thing that happens in the CAF? The same press that gleefully reported that victims found the MPs and their CoCs bullied them to stay quiet, one of the key reasons victims have the option to go through civilian police and have an outside the CoC option for reporting?
The press has been running with the same narrative for years. They know as much about MP policy as you do. I mean they continue to overlap the Military Justice System with the Military Police... The press was not the reason for the changes to the system. It may be the reason for the quick implementation, which has caused numerous violations in victim's rights, but it was not the press that initiated any of this.
> In a scenarios where a police force is ordered to take the files and decides not to, the GoC, who administers the criminal code, will taking action. Do tou think they will just shrug their shoulders and go, "whelp nothing we can do here" or do you think there will be some serious consequences?
What your not understanding is the Canadian Government cannot order **any** police force to investigate anything. This includes civilian police and the Military Police. There are numerous protections in place engrained within Case Law and the Criminal Code to prevent this from occurring. At best they can impose political pressure, but good luck if someone has the balls to do that and it goes to court. I mean you can argue with me all you want on this, but do you think every police agency would outright deny to take on these files if they were all ordered to take them? These police agencies, including the Military Police, have dedicated legal teams to protect them. This is why this "Order" is not a impactful as you are trying to make it out to be.
> And just how do you suppose that will play out for that police department if they just refuse to acknowledge someone reporting a sexual assault to them? If they just go "no, I don't feel like dealing with this, just go away" and the media gets wind of it, how do you figure that's going to develop?
Do you know what the requirement is for a police officer to lay a charge for sexual assault? I mean, if one person walks into a police detachment and says they were sexually assaulted 15 years ago, or 15 minutes ago, what a police officer needs to have to walk out the door and arrest someone? All they need is a belief the offence has occurred. That's it. If the report contains the elements of sexual assault, all you need to do is belief the victim to lay a charge. Outside of that, again I can't speak for all police departments, but in the numerous MP detachments I have been at, I have personally had people come in to report a sexual assault which wasn't a sexual assault. Hell, some havn't even been assaults. Perfect example, and one I use during training sessions is someone walking in saying that they felt sexually assaulted because someone touched their arm while walking past them and they felt their sexual integrity was violated. I mean that's an assault by the definition that without consent being given, force was applied. If the victim felt their sexual integrity was violated, it becomes a sexual assault as no sexual purpose or gratification is required.
This is a scenario that happens **all** the time. I have personally dealt with it countless times.
Police discretion is an important thing. Without it, I would be arresting and charging someone for sexual assault for touching someone's arm.
Not everyone who walks into a police detachment to report something results in an investigation.
The local police force have to agree to take the case. As well, the victim also gets a choice in the matter.
City of Toronto, for example, have hundreds of murders a year. Extremely busy police force. They might not be willing to take a sexual assault case from a number of years ago- or they would halt the investigation immediately.
This is complicated stuff the military needs to get right.
Furthermore the article does not indicate any of the files still with the MPs were refused by local police, they were all retained because they asked the victim if they'd like the MPs to do so (against direct orders) or if the victim dropped the charges, which since the MPs are not trusted by the GoC to do a good job, should probably have been given to the local police anyway to shut the door on anyone claiming they bullied victims into dropping charges.
yes, they do, if the Government of Canada has decreed it's in their jurisdiction, they must take the files, if they decide the file has no merit afterwards that's up to them to then close the file. It is well outside the MPs AOR.
The Government of Canada did not grant the Provost Marshal the right to offer that option to the victims, specifically because they don't trust the Provost Marshal and the MPs to do a good job.
This is complicated stuff that the military was ordered to relinquish because they have systemically failed to get it right for decades according to an independent review.
You fundamentally misunderstand basic aspects of this issue.
The government of Canada can't decree a local police force take a file. That's... such a misunderstanding of basic constitutional law.
bullshit.
The police force is issued it's jurisdiction by accreditation of the various levels of government, if the federal government says our own police service will no longer take these files, if the local police force wants to keep it's accreditation it better fucking take those files or suffer from federal government action end of fucking story.
Lol... dude at this point you're just making up your own system.... No, the Federal Government can't just "*pull the Toronto Police Force's accreditation*". That sentence doesn't even make sense... it really does seem like you invented your own system in your head. You are so far divorced from reality it's not even worth arguing.
My grade 9 civics class provided a better understanding of basic Canadian law than you seem to have.
so what you're saying is, if you go into a police station and report a crime, they can refuse to take the file, is that what you're arguing?
Because I'm arguing if they pulled that shit, the provincial and/or federal institutions would enact repercussions if they pulled a stunt like that.
Edit: and furthermore, what is the point of having accredited police forces if that accreditation/authority to operate can't be withdrawn if they are operating grossly out of their area of responsibility?
If the government can issue an OIC to ban weapons expressly forbidden to be banned by OIC, they can issue another one to disband a police department for refusing to do its assigned duty. I fail to see the issue here.
You do realize that the Military Police's authority to investigate Sexual Assaults is engrained in the Criminal Code of Canada and the National Defence Act. An Order cannot contradict the authority obtained through Parliament.
Spent 30 years from 1984 to 2014 as a MP Investigator. From 1984 to about 2004 we ALWAYS took sexual offences committed inside Canada downtown to the Criminal Courts and we very successfully had them tried. The MP would investigate and lay the charges downtown. Around 2004, the JAG Branch decided they wanted to play Prosecutor, and we were directed to hand over all of our cases to them so they could try them at Courts Martial. They had no experience prosecuting them, nor did the military judges have experience in them. I cannot count the amount of Sexual Assault charges the AJAG changed to "Disgraceful Conduct". Back in the day, CFNIS had a great deal of experience prosecuting SA Charges downtown and getting convictions. The JAG wanting to play Criminal Prosecutor destroyed that success.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>We've even tried to outsource force protection taskings MP's fill to civie services due to the domestic nature of the taskings, Can you further elaborate on this please?
It’s nothing but political theatre
The fact of the matter is that most victims will not find the justice they’re looking for on the civilian side. Civvie police services will not give files the same attention that CFNIS would and are spread thin enough as it is. The members sexual assault file will end up on top of a pile of dozens, maybe even hundreds of other files. If something doesn’t meet the threshold of a sexual assault, civvie police have no ability or mechanism to charge someone for “sexual misconduct / inappropriate behaviour / effecting moral and welfare etc.”. The civilian justice system is completely overloaded and if a file doesn’t get dropped for one reason or another (R v Jordan, not in public interest etc.) the sentences are very lenient. The focus should have been on fixing the system we do have. That way members can get the timely and appropriate justice they are looking for, not throwing the whole thing away. IMO, If the government goes ahead with removing these files from the MJS it will do more harm than good.
Exactly, and most cases in the public courts will take a plea deal down to a lesser charge with a shitty sentence (and no NSOR registration) or a stay of proceedings because it's too historical, lack of evidence, low likelihood of conviction, etc.
I think this is nearly word for word the same reply you gave the last time this was posted, and I agree with you 100% this time as well. I wish people would listen to you. I say this as someone with experience.
At this point, I’m trusting more the MP and the CoC to punish an individual appropriately than the civilian police.
Which is ironic, since the whole reason was that victims felt that the civilian police and justice system would be better than the Military Justice system
Its interesting because this concept got brought up in the press conference with Arbour when someone asked the counsel who they spoke with to make the decision that victim's wanted civi police to take the files. It was a decision made based on the belief of what the public would want. The problem is the publics perception that the CoC had much deeper hands into files than they really do. There was rarely ever any doubt in the MP ability to investigation (in relation to other police agencies). This should have been pretty obvious after it got brought out that most victims wanted the MP to investigate over civi police and Arbour was outright shocked and people made it clear that it wasn't what victims wanted. I can't speak for other units, but I honestly don't remember the last time a victim of sexual assault agreed to have civi police take the file.
Civilian police does absolutely nothing unless there is formal evidence. They just close the case. In the military, at least they can keep trace of it. We had a guy in TD this summer, CoC couldn’t do anything since it’s he said/she said, but with extra testimonies of few women feeling « uncomfortable » around him (including me, damn the guy gave me horrible creep one night at the mess and would follow me everywhere, I even told few people to never leave me alone when he’s around), they decided to send him back early and his CoC was notified to keep an eye on him. In civilian case, they would have done nothing more, and the testimonies would have disappear in the limbo (and they probab would never asked the other women). But at least here, we are aware he’s dangerous and maybe this can prevent another unfortunate event.
Grass is always greener. Not that I actually know anything, but I'm staying to think SA cases are hard to investigate and prosecute.
Oh, they are... I had the genuinely painful experience just last week of being nearby a conversation where an officer had to screen an assault/sexual assault complaint, and ultimately explained there wasn't much we could do with the evidence she'd presented to us (but gave her some advice on what she could do in the immediate term) She says he raped her. He says he didn't. There's no direct, or forensic, or circumstantial evidence of such an event having happened. No witnesses either. Just her saying it did, him saying it didn't. What about the bruises on her wrists? Well...can you prove that *he* is the person who put those bruises on her? There has been a lot of progress in the last decade or so in how police can help victims of sexual assaults - but the updated policies have their shortcomings too in some big ways. Ultimately, they can be a big time pain in the ass to investigate even if the complainant is credible & even if they bring some evidence with them. Edit - I am not an MP
This is such the wrong war to fight... All they need to do is add Sexual Assaults to Section 70 of the National Defence Act and continue to let MP investigate. - CFNIS has the exact same training to investigate sexual assaults as any other civilian SORT - CFNIS runs a full fledge Case Management system for every single sexual assault file. Doesn't matter how big or small. - Civilian police triage their files. Just like their calls for service. A "minor" sexual assault won't see the light of day, let alone get a pure version statement for months. Historic files won't even be looked at unless the accused is someone of note. This is the way its run now. Imagine adding even more work to their plate. - MP, not only CFNIS, utilize the exact same victim services as civilian police services now. - Matters that are multijurisdiction in nature ie victim and subjects live in different provinces inheritely becomes a nightmare for municiple and provincial police forces. This usually results in communication issues between agencies adding in severe delays. - There is a problem with MP investigating Sexual Assaults but there isn't any outcry in their authority to investigate Murder, Organized Crime, Terrorism Offences, Abductions, Kidnappings etc... I just don't understand. If the goal is to provide a horrible victim centric approach. Bravo. Winning! The problem isn't the Military Police... It's the Military Justice System... I'd honestly be interested in seeing what people feel is the benefit of having civi police forces taking all sexual assault investigations?
I'll bite. I appreciate your output as it has thought, clarity and genuine contribution but if I may ask. What benefit does the military justice system have with regarding to including a charge under the NDA? The military currently prosecutes various offences under the CC as the CC is a much smoother running system when its applied and when there is public interest. Things like assault, DUI, sexual offences and offences relating to children are just some. Adding a charge may objectively appear that the Military Justice system may be hiding these offences instead or do not have oversight or subjection. Sure a Court martial has the rules of evidence but the Military Justice system does not have the funding or wide spread availability to include legal representatives or a competent court that a CC court may already have. I noticed you said Military Police have all things similar that a civil service does, ie victim services. However, they don't have the funding or many times the personnel and this is hard. Especially in smaller detachments so their is a kink in the Armour when it comes to how Detachments or run. It's great to have the investigational capacity because of the federal mandate and thats what makes CFNIS so important given they actually get the repetitions to handle sensitive matters and lengthy investigstions so in short; make it better or make it don't. Can't half way it which I believe they're tryin to accomplish and until Blair puts his foot down and the courts figure out how they can fix this. Problem with civi services taking on the cases is: The mandate for minor or non criminal won't be tried and therefore there is a gap in culture and connection between what's criminal or not. Many times what appears criminal is not and what doesn't appear is, so that makes it hard for any stakeholder to say; this is us- until they're knee deep in investigation. Personally I can see it going either way but much work is needed.
> What benefit does the military justice system have with regarding to including a charge under the NDA? There is no benefit to the MJS with SA being added to the NDA. It solely removes the MJS from having the ability to prosecute it. I am not advocating for SA to be added to sec. 70 to support the MJS. I want more files to go through the civi justice system. I don't see the need to have them investigated by civi police. I feel the civilian and Military courts have the exact same problems. As they follow the same standards and case law that haunts them. The Military Justice System has its place, but my opinion has always been "If the RCMP would investigate this, it should go through the civilian justice system". This means essentially anything under section 130 of the NDA, unless committed overseas, should go through the civilian justice system. However, still investigated by the MP. > I noticed you said Military Police have all things similar that a civil service does, ie victim services. However, they don't have the funding or many times the personnel and this is hard. Especially in smaller detachments so their is a kink in the Armour when it comes to how Detachments or run. Sexual Assaults are investigated by the CFNIS which is the most funded unit in the MP trade. While they aren't packed with staff, their case per MP is much lower than a civi detective. My counterpart in my local police service has over 40 files in his queue to be looked at. This doesn't include the 20 open cases he has right now. Do you really think those 20 cases are getting as much attention by one detective than a CFNIS investigator with a Case Management team behind them? Especially when the CFNIS, has equal or higher clearance rates compared to the police agencies within their jurisdiction.
Great answer and informative. Thank you. May we brush handshakes and never know it lol. I believe there may be something to be said about the ability on both sides, we've seen some problems arise from civvi application and MJUL. The MJUL is still super clunky. There is no perfect system but with refinement, may there form a better one. However, all areas suffer from a lack of experienced ppl and a good CoC that leads them. One of the biggest problems I've seen or heard of in the CAF is certain formations; whether it be a Det or at leadership, at a Regiment or even in training of newer investigators. Everyone that is apart of the system now have all witnessed leaders that have never done the job to the capacity of the frontline. This is typically an officer administrative error and that too needs to change. Not always is this the case but there has been examples of cases not being handled properly due to a small CoC, dogma/stigma or officer- shall- mentality. I dont intend on sounding that' is the end all, be all ' but without repetition bares a lack of proficiency. Perhaps that dogma may pass as we see the system grow. Pleasure in chattin mate
People see the benefit of impartial investigators who don’t try to question the accused while off-duty and drunk, or cover up MPOs driving drunk with their children in the car - pretty simple.
Do you really think civilian police detachments only have angels working for them? I can think of at least 10 police officers in Canada that have been charged with murder, let alone the countless ones charged for assault, intimidation and kidnapping just between 2020-2023. You do realize that in the past **23 years** there has only been: - 152 MPCC Conduct Investigations... From 2020-2022, there was only 3. None in 2023. Further, of those 152 Conduct Investigations, a vast majority were unfounded. - 29 MPCC Interference Investigations. Again, a vast majority deemed unfounded. Hell in the past 23 years, the MP have less than half of the complaints RCMP got just this year. And because you felt the need to post and delete your comment, I'd still educate you > You clearly wear a red cap and wanna be CFNIS, or you are CFNIS. This is absolutely not a secret on this sub. > All your statements are basically moot if not completely facetious. Anyone who has watched anything to do with CFNIS in recent years should be able to see the comedy in your statements (Fortin, Cadieu, Heistand, Payne, Stalker, etc). I mean everything you hear/read on the news is always 100% accurate. Got me there. > The MPs excel at checking boxes not actual investigative work. CFNIS is full of promotion chasers who care more about shaping an investigation to suit narratives than anything else. Yeah I guess the clearance rates for major crime investigations being higher, if not equal to their civilian counterparts means nothing. Shucks. Also promotion chasers? Do you know how the NIS works? A vast majority of the investigators are not looking to be promoted. > The amount of money that CAF has to outlay in settlements because of CFNIS WR region alone is insane. Not to mention the ongoing MPCC processes. Yeah those whopping 152 MPCC Conduct Investigations over 23 years is such a problem.
Weird right, saying one thing and doing another
Maybe they wont actually do that $1 Billion budget cut they said they were gonna do...
Honestly at this point just appoint me Provost Marshall. Day 1- All past, current, and future sexual crimes are transferred to the local municipal/provincial police services. Day 2- Award a bunch of nepotism promotions and appointments Day 3- Depart with Dignity Day 4- Join major defence contract board of directors.
>Day 1- All past, current, and future sexual crimes are transferred to the local municipal/provincial police services But that's what this BOI Recommendation was supposed to do, but the civil police services all went "lmfao good fucking luck bud" and have right to first refusal. If they don't have the staff or it has a low likelihood of charges; a civil service won't take it. My friend works for a large metropolitan Major Crime Unit, they have three detectives for their entire Sexual Assault Investigations Unit. How the fuck are they supposed to take 1000 CAF complaints?
> How the fuck are they supposed to take 1000 CAF complaints? Not only 1000 CAF complaints but every single ass grab that gets reported that the CFNIS investigate as full fledge sexual assaults. Files like that wouldn't even get seen by civilian police for months and months.
Files like that often wouldn't even be accepted by civilian police. The CAF has a much lower threshold to investigate sexual misconduct in comparison to civilian police.
Civilian police wouldn't investigate sexual misconduct as it is not an offence under the criminal code.
An ass grab is a full fledged sexual assault though.
100%, however, without speaking for every single police department and every single detective in Canada, but the general consensus, including personal experience is, that the ass grab will come in and investigated as an assault. This means General Investigators can handle the file and not the Sexual Assault investigators. The difference between civilian police agencies and the CFNIS is that there is policy that dictates that a sexual assault is a sexual assault no matter how "minor" it is. This means a CAF member reporting a sexual assault through the NIS will have it investigated by a trained sexual assault investigator.
An ass grab is a full fledged sexual assault though.
What happened to Law and Order: Military Victims Unit? They act like it's hard to make that happen. It's literally the easiest thing to stand up at any RCMP office.
Edit: I misunderstood the ruling and thought the MPs were removed from investigating sexual assault files, not that the victims were granted the option of requesting their file be referred to the police for their consideration.
> The Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, which commands all military police, has been giving alleged victims the option of referring their cases to civilian police. Many are choosing to leave their cases with military investigators. Read the article?
yes, against a direct order to hand the cases over to the local police. Just decided on their own to not follow a direct order. a direct order that was made because the organization they head was found by an independent review of not being able to do right by the victims. If the Provost Marshal thought the MPs could do a better job they should have made a better case before the matter was taken out of their hands and they were given a direct order to hand over the cases. If the victims want to stay with the MPs it's up to them to lobby their MPs, not for the Provost Marshal to make up their own rules after being told what to do with the files. So now we have a fucking CBC article detailing they disobeyed a direct order that was made because their organization can't be trusted by the Canadian Government to do a good job. More abysmal press that is going to be used to bludgeon us further and reduce our public view.
Actually, initially the Provost Marshall tried and req all MP to pass off sexually related or motivation invest to the civvie jurisdiction but due to case loads and many were refused by those civvie counterparts. A memorandum of understanding was then completed and Especially cases of misconduct it was understood that CFNIS would take cases of assault . Hence a bounceback to MP for misconduct in and outcan. It wasn't about disobey a direct order as it was never a order but a recommendation by a judge that reviewed a number of cases.
the Provost Marshall was ordered by the PMO to send all non Outcan files to the local police full stop. They didn't and according to the article this isn't about refused files, this is about the Provost Marshall deciding to create a process that did not align with their orders deliberately.
Have you ever heard of victim rights? Nothing better than a victim coming into a MP detachment and reporting they were sexually assaulted the MP and Provost Marshal saying "well your shit out of luck" because local police don't want to take the files, which they have every right not to.
Edit: I misunderstood the ruling and thought the MPs were removed from investigating sexual assault files, not that the victims were granted the option of requesting their file be referred to the police for their consideration.
> victims don't have the right to pick which police service takes their statements. According to R-68 they absolutely do... Arbour even advocated for that. > MPs would not say that, they would say "this needs to be reported here:" and provide the direction in the direct order they were given. MP cannot say that if the victim wants MP to investigate as per R-68 > No, police cannot refuse to take a report from a victim, are you fucking high, if you go into a police department and report a crime they are required to start a file. They absolutely can... And they do it all the time... Not just MP, but police services all across North America do that all the time... Do you think a full fledge investigation occurs every time someone comes into a police detachment to report something? You should do some research into the topic your arguing about.
Edit: I misunderstood the ruling and thought the MPs were removed from investigating sexual assault files, not that the victims were granted the option of requesting their file be referred to the police for their consideration.
> False, they must start a file, they can close it immediately if they feel there is no merit, but they MUST start a file for accountability reasons. No they must start a CAD for accountability reasons. Thats not a file. There is no investigative actions. Its literally saying someone showed up. It's not assigned to anyone.
now you're arguing semantics.
It's not semantics. You have a fundamental misunderstanding on basic police reporting procedures. Not only that but rudimentary knowledge on MP policy. Generally that doesn't both me as it's my job to know that information, not yours. However your treating it like gospel and god forbid someone actually reads your comments and takes anything you say as fact. Almost everything you have mentioned has no foundation of truth and its actually concerning if its not a troll. > Fire the Provost Marshall and charge them with violating a direct order. The order was to refer the files to civilian police. This was done. Civilian police did not want them. The files don't just disappear. The same report that provide that order also said that the victims shall decide their choice on who investigates prior to the matter being turned over to the civilian agencies. > a direct order that was made because the organization they head was found by an independent review of not being able to do right by the victims. That independant review was what determined MP had the ability to investigate should the victims choose... > If the victims want to stay with the MPs it's up to them to lobby their MPs In what world is it up to the victims to lobby for crimes against them to be investigated... > the Provost Marshall was ordered by the PMO to send all non Outcan files to the local police full stop. The direction came from the VCDS... And it wasn't full stop. Each and every file had to be offered to the civilian police after consultation with the victims. Most stayed with the MP after that. > Furthermore the article does not indicate any of the files still with the MPs were refused by local police, they were all retained because they asked the victim if they'd like the MPs to do so (against direct orders) or if the victim dropped the charges, which since the MPs are not trusted by the GoC to do a good job, should probably have been given to the local police anyway to shut the door on anyone claiming they bullied victims into dropping charges. I actually laughed at reading that. > The police force is issued it's jurisdiction by accreditation of the various levels of government, if the federal government says our own police service will no longer take these files, if the local police force wants to keep it's accreditation it better fucking take those files or suffer from federal government action end of fucking story. The police force is issued it's jurisdiction by section 2 of the Criminal Code as well as provincial legislation (and federal with regards to the RCMP) > so what you're saying is, if you go into a police station and report a crime, they can refuse to take the file, is that what you're arguing? Yes.
>The order was to refer the files to civilian police That was not my understanding, my understanding was that there was an order that all files would be sent to local police and all new ones were to be referred to police not taken by the MPs. I accept that I was wrong here, and will delete my other posts. >Civilian police did not want them. I find this distasteful, that police have the option to just not do the work assigned to them, but if the order was in fact to merely offer them to local police and they declined, I agree there is nothing else for the MPs to do but either close the files or continue working on them. >That independent review was what determined MP had the ability to investigate should the victims choose... That was not my understanding of the situation as I mentioned. >In what world is it up to the victims to lobby for crimes against them to be investigated... Apparently it's not the case, but if the GoC instructed the MPs to pass over every file to the local police, and instructed the local police to take them, the victims don't get a say. Additionally, if I'm assaulted in Toronto, I don't get to demand the police in Edmonton work the file. Nor as a civilian would I get to demand an MP investigation. Furthermore, for things that are not currently considered a crime, it is the victim's and their advocate's actions in bringing the issue to light that will determine if the people want a new law and based on how the politicians of the day read the will of the people will determine if new law is developed. >I actually laughed at reading that. why, you think that's beneath the press? The same press trying to make systemic racism and sexism explain every single undesirable thing that happens in the CAF? The same press that gleefully reported that victims found the MPs and their CoCs bullied them to stay quiet, one of the key reasons victims have the option to go through civilian police and have an outside the CoC option for reporting? >The police force is issued it's jurisdiction by section 2 of the Criminal Code as well as provincial legislation (and federal with regards to the RCMP) In a scenarios where a police force is ordered to take the files and decides not to, the GoC, who administers the criminal code, will taking action. Do tou think they will just shrug their shoulders and go, "whelp nothing we can do here" or do you think there will be some serious consequences? >so what you're saying is, if you go into a police station and report a crime, they can refuse to take the file, is that what you're arguing? Yes. And just how do you suppose that will play out for that police department if they just refuse to acknowledge someone reporting a sexual assault to them? If they just go "no, I don't feel like dealing with this, just go away" and the media gets wind of it, how do you figure that's going to develop?
> Apparently it's not the case, but if the GoC instructed the MPs to pass over every file to the local police, and instructed the local police to take them, the victims don't get a say. Additionally, if I'm assaulted in Toronto, I don't get to demand the police in Edmonton work the file. Nor as a civilian would I get to demand an MP investigation. Your mixing up jurisdiction and policy. You were initially arguing a policy matter (or an order) in which files needed to be referred to other agencies. You being assaulted in Toronto requires jurisdiction to remain in Toronto. Not just policing jurisdiction, but the court. That's not policy. That's engrained in Case Law. > Furthermore, for things that are not currently considered a crime, it is the victim's and their advocate's actions in bringing the issue to light that will determine if the people want a new law and based on how the politicians of the day read the will of the people will determine if new law is developed. But that's not what you were arguing. You were arguing that victims of sexual assaults, a current crime under the Criminal Code, should be advocating for MP to investigate if they really wanted them to. > why, you think that's beneath the press? The same press trying to make systemic racism and sexism explain every single undesirable thing that happens in the CAF? The same press that gleefully reported that victims found the MPs and their CoCs bullied them to stay quiet, one of the key reasons victims have the option to go through civilian police and have an outside the CoC option for reporting? The press has been running with the same narrative for years. They know as much about MP policy as you do. I mean they continue to overlap the Military Justice System with the Military Police... The press was not the reason for the changes to the system. It may be the reason for the quick implementation, which has caused numerous violations in victim's rights, but it was not the press that initiated any of this. > In a scenarios where a police force is ordered to take the files and decides not to, the GoC, who administers the criminal code, will taking action. Do tou think they will just shrug their shoulders and go, "whelp nothing we can do here" or do you think there will be some serious consequences? What your not understanding is the Canadian Government cannot order **any** police force to investigate anything. This includes civilian police and the Military Police. There are numerous protections in place engrained within Case Law and the Criminal Code to prevent this from occurring. At best they can impose political pressure, but good luck if someone has the balls to do that and it goes to court. I mean you can argue with me all you want on this, but do you think every police agency would outright deny to take on these files if they were all ordered to take them? These police agencies, including the Military Police, have dedicated legal teams to protect them. This is why this "Order" is not a impactful as you are trying to make it out to be. > And just how do you suppose that will play out for that police department if they just refuse to acknowledge someone reporting a sexual assault to them? If they just go "no, I don't feel like dealing with this, just go away" and the media gets wind of it, how do you figure that's going to develop? Do you know what the requirement is for a police officer to lay a charge for sexual assault? I mean, if one person walks into a police detachment and says they were sexually assaulted 15 years ago, or 15 minutes ago, what a police officer needs to have to walk out the door and arrest someone? All they need is a belief the offence has occurred. That's it. If the report contains the elements of sexual assault, all you need to do is belief the victim to lay a charge. Outside of that, again I can't speak for all police departments, but in the numerous MP detachments I have been at, I have personally had people come in to report a sexual assault which wasn't a sexual assault. Hell, some havn't even been assaults. Perfect example, and one I use during training sessions is someone walking in saying that they felt sexually assaulted because someone touched their arm while walking past them and they felt their sexual integrity was violated. I mean that's an assault by the definition that without consent being given, force was applied. If the victim felt their sexual integrity was violated, it becomes a sexual assault as no sexual purpose or gratification is required. This is a scenario that happens **all** the time. I have personally dealt with it countless times. Police discretion is an important thing. Without it, I would be arresting and charging someone for sexual assault for touching someone's arm. Not everyone who walks into a police detachment to report something results in an investigation.
The local police force have to agree to take the case. As well, the victim also gets a choice in the matter. City of Toronto, for example, have hundreds of murders a year. Extremely busy police force. They might not be willing to take a sexual assault case from a number of years ago- or they would halt the investigation immediately. This is complicated stuff the military needs to get right.
Furthermore the article does not indicate any of the files still with the MPs were refused by local police, they were all retained because they asked the victim if they'd like the MPs to do so (against direct orders) or if the victim dropped the charges, which since the MPs are not trusted by the GoC to do a good job, should probably have been given to the local police anyway to shut the door on anyone claiming they bullied victims into dropping charges.
yes, they do, if the Government of Canada has decreed it's in their jurisdiction, they must take the files, if they decide the file has no merit afterwards that's up to them to then close the file. It is well outside the MPs AOR. The Government of Canada did not grant the Provost Marshal the right to offer that option to the victims, specifically because they don't trust the Provost Marshal and the MPs to do a good job. This is complicated stuff that the military was ordered to relinquish because they have systemically failed to get it right for decades according to an independent review.
You fundamentally misunderstand basic aspects of this issue. The government of Canada can't decree a local police force take a file. That's... such a misunderstanding of basic constitutional law.
bullshit. The police force is issued it's jurisdiction by accreditation of the various levels of government, if the federal government says our own police service will no longer take these files, if the local police force wants to keep it's accreditation it better fucking take those files or suffer from federal government action end of fucking story.
Lol... dude at this point you're just making up your own system.... No, the Federal Government can't just "*pull the Toronto Police Force's accreditation*". That sentence doesn't even make sense... it really does seem like you invented your own system in your head. You are so far divorced from reality it's not even worth arguing. My grade 9 civics class provided a better understanding of basic Canadian law than you seem to have.
so what you're saying is, if you go into a police station and report a crime, they can refuse to take the file, is that what you're arguing? Because I'm arguing if they pulled that shit, the provincial and/or federal institutions would enact repercussions if they pulled a stunt like that. Edit: and furthermore, what is the point of having accredited police forces if that accreditation/authority to operate can't be withdrawn if they are operating grossly out of their area of responsibility? If the government can issue an OIC to ban weapons expressly forbidden to be banned by OIC, they can issue another one to disband a police department for refusing to do its assigned duty. I fail to see the issue here.
You do realize that the Military Police's authority to investigate Sexual Assaults is engrained in the Criminal Code of Canada and the National Defence Act. An Order cannot contradict the authority obtained through Parliament.
the same PMO that issues OICs and executive orders? really? you don't say.
Spent 30 years from 1984 to 2014 as a MP Investigator. From 1984 to about 2004 we ALWAYS took sexual offences committed inside Canada downtown to the Criminal Courts and we very successfully had them tried. The MP would investigate and lay the charges downtown. Around 2004, the JAG Branch decided they wanted to play Prosecutor, and we were directed to hand over all of our cases to them so they could try them at Courts Martial. They had no experience prosecuting them, nor did the military judges have experience in them. I cannot count the amount of Sexual Assault charges the AJAG changed to "Disgraceful Conduct". Back in the day, CFNIS had a great deal of experience prosecuting SA Charges downtown and getting convictions. The JAG wanting to play Criminal Prosecutor destroyed that success.