Courts Martial

Decision Information

Abu-Ghosh S.M. (Captain), R. v.

Collection Courts Martial
Date 2008-06-16
Neutral citation 2008 CM 1019
Docket 200771
Judge M. Dutil
Decision type Finding
Decision status Available
Type of Court Martial Disciplinary Court Martial
Notes

Archived Content

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Summary:

Date of commencement of the trial: 16 June 2008

Location: CFB Trenton, Building 22, 3rd floor, 74 Polaris Avenue, Trenton, ON

Charges
•Charges 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7: S. 125(a) NDA, wilfully made a false statement in a document signed by him that was required for official purpose.
•Charge 8: S. 125(a) NDA, wilfully made a false entry in a document signed by him that was required for official purpose.

Results
•FINDINGS: Charges 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8: Proceedings terminated.

Disciplinary Court Martial (DCM) (composed of a military judge and a panel of five members)

Decision Content

Citation: R. v. Captain S.H. Abu-Ghosh, 2008 CM 1019

 

Docket: 200771

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY COURT MARTIAL

CANADA

ONTARIO

8 WING TRENTON

 

Date: 16 June 2008

 

PRESIDING: COLONEL M.  DUTIL, C.M.J.

 

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

v.

CAPTAIN S. M. ABU-GHOSH

 

DECISION ON PLEA IN BAR OF TRIAL APPLICATION FOR THE COURT LACKING JURISDICTION (QR&O ARTS 112.05(5)(b) AND 112.24)

(Rendered orally)

 

 

[1]                    Pursuant to the application made by the defence that this court has no jurisdiction with regard to the fact that the accused has indicated that he doesn’t wish to be tried by a Disciplinary Court Martial and that the Court Martial Appeal Court decision in Trepanier delivered on April 24, 2008 binds this court, and considering that the prosecution also agrees that, the accused having indicated that he doesn’t wish to be tried by a Disciplinary Court Martial, the court has no jurisdiction to continue; the court, in adopting the reasoning by my colleague Judge d’Auteuil in R. v. Strong delivered on 15 May 2008, will grant the application presented by defence and terminate the proceedings on all charges pursuant to QR&O 112.24(6).

 

 

[2]                    For the record, the court is of the view that it is regrettable that judicial resources, as well as counsel and support staff, including panel members, had to come here today.  Based on the prosecution’s position this, in my view, could have been avoided considering the authority and powers vested in the prosecution provided at section 165.12 (2) and (3) of the National Defence Act, in particular, subsection (3) which states, and I quote:

 

Withdrawing a charge does not preclude it from being proceeded with at any subsequent time....

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                  Colonel M. Dutil

                                                                                                            Chief Military Judge

 

Counsel: 

 

Major J.J. Samson, Regional Military Prosecutions Atlantic

Counsel for Her Majesty The Queen

Captain D. Morel, 33 Canadian Brigade Group Headquarters

Assistant Counsel for Her Majesty The Queen

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

Counsel for Captain Abu-Ghosh

 

 

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.