Courts Martial

Citation: R. v. Captain S. Trus, 2007 CM 2003

Docket: 200683

STANDING COURT MARTIAL

CANADA

ONTARIO

CANADIAN FORCES BASE TRENTON

Date: 13 February 2007

PRESIDING: COMMANDER P.J. LAMONT, M.J.

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

v.

CAPTAIN S. TRUS

(Offender)

SENTENCE

(Rendered Orally)

[1]                    Captain Trus, having accepted and recorded your plea of guilty to one charge of ill treatment of a subordinate, the court now finds you guilty of the charge.

[2]                    It now falls to me to determine and to pass a sentence upon you.  In so doing, I have considered the principles of sentencing that apply in the ordinary courts of criminal jurisdiction in Canada and at courts martial.  I have, as well, considered the facts of the case as described in the statment of circumstances, Exhibit 6, and the other material submitted during the mitigation phase, as well as the submissions of counsel, both for the prosecution and for the defence.

[3]                    The principles of sentencing guide the court in the exercise of its discretion in determining a fit and proper sentence in an individual case.  The sentence should be broadly commensurate with the gravity of the offence and the blameworthi­ness or degree of responsibility of the offender, as well as his character.  The court is guided by the sentences imposed by other courts in previous similar cases, not out of a slavish adherence to precedent, but because it appeals to our common sense of justice that like cases should be treated in similar ways.  Nevertheless, in imposing sentence, the court takes account of the many factors that distinguish the particular case it is dealing with, both the aggravating circumstances that may call for a more severe punishment, and the mitigating circumstances that may reduce a sentence.

[4]                    The goals and objectives of sentencing have been expressed in different ways in many previous cases.  Generally, they relate to the protection of society, which includes, of course, the Canadian Forces, by fostering and maintaining a just, a peaceful, a safe, and a law-abiding community.  Importantly, in the context of the Canadian Forces, these objectives include the maintenance of discipline, that habit of obedience which is so necessary to the effectiveness of an armed force.  The goals and objectives also include deterrence of the individual, so that the conduct of the offender is not repeated, and general deterrence, so that others will not be led to follow the example of the offender.  Other goals include the rehabilitation of the offender, the promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender, and the denunciation of unlawful behaviour.

[5]                    One or more of these objectives will inevitably predominate in arriving at a fit and just sentence in an individual case, yet it should not be lost sight of that each of these goals calls for the attention of the sentencing court, and a fit and just sentence should be a wise blending of these goals tailored to the particular circumstances of the case. 

[6]                    As I told you when you tendered your plea of guilty, section 139 of the National Defence Act prescribes the possible punishments that may be imposed at court martial.  Those possible punishments are limited by the provision of the law which creates the offence and provides for a maximum punishment, and are further limited to the jurisdiction that may be exercised by this court.  Only one sentence is imposed upon an offender whether the offender is found guilty of one or more different offences, but the sentence may consist of more than one punishment.  It is an important principle that the court should impose the least severe punishment that will maintain discipline.  In arriving at the sentence in this case, I have considered the direct and indirect conse­quences for the offender of the finding of guilt and the sentence I am about to impose.

[7]                    In summary, the facts of the offence disclose that in the early evening hours of the date alleged in the charge, the offender came to the attention of the 5 Wing Goose Bay Military Police as a result of a disturbance at his residence.  MP members Corporal Deslippe and Corporal Hessling found the offender, apparently, in a very intoxicated condition, and he was arrested for the offence of drunkenness, taken to the MP section, and lodged in cells by Corporal Deslippe.

[8]                    From the time he was lodged, and continuing for a period of almost three hours, the offender was angry and aggressive.  He directed abusive and foul language at Corporal Deslippe in the terms particularized in the charge.  I am told by counsel, and I accept, that the offender has very little memory of the evening in question, and no memory of events following his arrest.  It is clear that the offender suffers alcoholism and other medical difficulties, and the combination of excessive alcohol and prescrip­tion medication may account for his lack of recall.

[9]                    It is not clear to me whether either alcohol or medication or their combination contributed to the commission of the offence, but based upon his early indication that he would plead guilty, and his statements to his current detachment commander, Major Cupples, I am satisfied that the behaviour exhibited by the offender toward Corporal Deslippe was out of character for him.  For whatever reason, he appears to have just lost it completely on this occasion.

[10]                  Both counsel for the prosecution and on behalf of the offender agree that a fit disposition in this case is a severe reprimand and a fine in the amount of $1,000.  I agree with and accept the several mitigating and aggravating circumstances referred to by the prosecutor and adopted by counsel for Captain Trus in their addresses, although I do not consider the time spent by the offender in military police custody to be attribut­able to the offence for which he is to be sentenced.  As well, I would distinguish the circumstances of the present offence from the more usual circumstances where the abuse or ill-treatment occurs in the course of an employment relationship of supervisor to subordinate.

[11]                  This is not to say that military police members are not entitled to be treated with ordinary courtesy and respect by their military superiors, but merely to observe that, by reason of their training and experience, military police members are unlikely to suffer the same kinds of demoralizing consequences from this kind of behaviour as persons who are victimized in the course of a workplace relationship.

[12]                  The offender is a mature man of 45 years of age.  After a few years in the junior ranks of the Canadian Forces, he released and pursued a career in the private sector.  He then returned to his education, rejoined the Canadian Forces, and obtained a qualification in dentistry.  His recent performance evaluations demonstrate that, but for the behaviour that brings him before the court, he was well qualified for promotion.  After two in-patient placements for alcohol rehabilitation, followed by two relapses, the second just prior to the time of the offence, it appears that the third bout of treatment has enjoyed more success, and the offender is said to be making an excellent recovery.

[13]                  The sentence to be pronounced is, of course, a matter for the court.  But where, as in this case, both parties agree on a recommended disposition, that recommen­dation carries considerable weight with the court.  The courts of appeal across Canada, including the Court Martial Appeal Court, have held that the joint submission of counsel as to sentence should be accepted by the court unless the recommended sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or is otherwise contrary to the public interest.  Considering all the circumstances, both of the offence and of the offender, I cannot say that the recommended sentence would either bring the administra­tion of justice into disrepute or is otherwise contrary to the public interest, and I, therefore, accept the joint submission.

[14]                  Stand up, Captain Trus,.  You are sentenced to a severe reprimand and a fine in the amount of $1,000 to be paid in monthly installments of $200 each commenc­ing 15 March 2007, and continuing for the following four months.  In the event you are released from the Canadian Forces for any reason before the fine is paid in full, the then outstanding unpaid balance is due and payable the day prior to your release.  March out Captain Trus.

[15]                  The proceedings of this court martial in respect of Captain Trus are hereby terminated.

                                                                                 COMMANDER P.J. LAMONT, M.J.

Counsel:

Major J.J. Samson, Military Prosecutions Atlantic Area

Counsel for Her Majesty the Queen

Lieutenant-Commander J.A. McMunagle, Directorate of Defence Counsel Services

Counsel for Captain S. Trus