Courts Martial

COURT MARTIAL

 

Citation: R v Rodgers, 2014 CM 1004

 

Date: 20140310

Docket: 201314

 

Standing Court Martial

 

2nd Canadian Division Support Base, Valcartier

Courcelette, Quebec, Canada

 

Between:

 

Her Majesty the Queen

 

- and -

 

Private M. Rodgers, Offender

 

 

Before: Colonel M. Dutil, C.M.J.

 

OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION

 

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

 

(Orally)

 

[1]               The then-Private Rodgers pled guilty to six charges of absence without permission under section 90 of the National Defence Act.

 

[2]               The offences were committed between late March and August 2012. The length of the absences varies: five of them were for an hour or less, while the rest were for a day or a few hours.

 

[3]               Counsel jointly submitted to the Court this morning that the sentence consist of 15 days’ imprisonment and also asked that the enforcement of this sentence of imprisonment be suspended.

 

[4]               The evidence filed during the sentencing hearing clearly reveals that the offender had or displayed many behavioural and attitudinal problems leading to the disciplinary proceedings before this Court and also the previous proceedings. His troubles are directly related to relatively serious psychological problems associated with his abuse of alcohol and of “spice,” used by the offender to deal with episodes of severe insomnia that allegedly started after he returned from Afghanistan.

 

[5]               According to his psychiatrist, Private Rodgers has limited coping mechanisms. This would, in her opinion, explain his decision to increase his alcohol consumption and also the impulsiveness that led him to take unauthorized leave rather than consult health professionals to be treated, specifically for his mental health. According to his psychiatrist, it is possible that the symptoms existed long before they were discovered, and, in her view, this could explain the difficulties he had in complying with the requests made to him by his superiors and the frictions between him and his chain of command.

 

[6]               Private Rodgers was released from the Canadian Forces in November 2012, under paragraph 5(f). Counsel provided the Court with information that also explains the lengthy delays in this case, which, among other things, are due to changes in counsel and also the request for a psychiatric assessment of Private Rodgers.

 

[7]               Private Rodgers is a young, 25-year-old man. His military conduct sheet reports similar offences committed a few months prior to March 2012. In May 2012, he was also convicted of impaired driving by a civil court for an offence he committed on 9 February 2012, and the Court notes that 9 February 2012, is one of the days on which he was absent without permission.

 

[8]               There is no doubt that, between late 2011 and the date of his release from the Canadian Forces in November 2012, Private Rodgers was not at all receptive to military discipline or to accepting its importance in the Armed Forces. He ended up suffering the consequences, by being released from the Canadian Forces.

 

[9]               Since then, however, he seems to be on the right track to solving his alcohol and drug abuse problems. Moreover, his reintegration into civilian life, to date, seems to be successful. He has been taking a course funded by Emploi Québec since November 2013, and the Court notes that he is a good student, who has not missed a single day since the start of his training. I consider this to be a particularly important factor in the circumstances. He is living with his mother in Montréal, and he is unemployed.

 

[10]           Counsel presented the Court with a multitude of decisions on similar issues, and their joint submission seems reasonable to me. The imprisonment sentence suggested by counsel contributes to the objectives of general deterrence and of denunciation, which are required in the context of this type of offence.

 

[11]           But I also agree with or accept the opinion expressed by counsel that a pardon is very important in this case, for two reasons: first, he has already been released from the Canadian Forces for the actions that resulted in the previous charges and in the charges before this Court and for his conduct in general; and, second, he is pulling himself together. The Court believes that it must assist in the rehabilitation of the offender or, at least, not undermine or stop it.

 

[12]           It is not only in military life that one has to be on time at work or elsewhere. And it is not only in military life that one has to follow instructions. One must accept that life in a free, democratic society entails, involves duties. And the lot of being an adult is to have duties and obligations.

 

[13]           I am very hopeful that Private Rodgers is on the right track. During the sentencing hearing today, I was able to see not only his polite behaviour, but also the extent to which, up to which point he has the support of his mother. And you should consider yourself lucky, privileged to have your mother’s support at this time. And now it is up to you to show that you fully deserve her trust in you and also the Court’s trust in you as the Court will accept the joint recommendation prepared by counsel.

 

[14]           I will therefore give you the opportunity, Mr. Rodgers, to show that you are able to contribute, not only now, but for the rest of your adult life, that you are able to make a proper contribution to society. You have all the tools you need to do so, and you will develop others as the months and years go by.

 

[15]           I think that, in the circumstances, it is neither necessary nor reasonable to have the offender serve a sentence of imprisonment, as short as it may be, for the offences of absence without permission committed 12 to 18 months ago. The Court believes that having the offender serve a sentence of 15 days’ imprisonment could be counterproductive because of the harm that this could cause or lead to during his rehabilitation process, which seems off to a good start.  In these circumstances, I feel that the remaining factors weigh in favour of suspending the sentence of imprisonment as has been requested by counsel.

 

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT:

 

[16]           FINDS the offender guilty of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth count of absence without permission under section 90 of the National Defence Act.

 

[17]           SENTENCES the offender to imprisonment for a term of 15 days.

 

AND

 

[18]           SUSPENDS the carrying into effect of the sentence of imprisonment.

 

Counsel:

 

Major G. Roy, Canadian Military Prosecution Service

Counsel for Her Majesty the Queen

 

Lieutenant-Commander P. Desbiens, Defence Counsel Services

Counsel for Ex-Private M. Rodgers