Courts Martial

COURT MARTIAL

Citation: R v Inglis, 2013 CM 2007

Date: 20130226

Docket: 201277

Standing Court Martial

Land Forces Central Area Training Centre

Meaford, Ontario, Canada

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

- and -

Sergeant D. Inglis, Offender

Before: Commander P.J. Lamont, M.J.

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

(Orally)

[1]        Sergeant Inglis, having accepted and recorded your plea of guilty to the first and only charge in the charge sheet, a charge of disobeying a lawful command of a superior officer, and having considered the alleged and admitted facts in this case, this court now finds you guilty on 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 disclosed in the statement of circumstances, Exhibit 3, and the other materials submitted during the course of this hearing, 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 and character of the offender.  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, of which of course the Canadian Forces is a part, 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.  One or more of these objectives will inevitably predominate in crafting a fit 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 sentence should reflect an appropriate blending of these goals, tailored to the particular circumstances of the case.

[5]        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.  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.

[6]        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 pronounce.

[7]        The facts of this case are not complicated.  In a training context, here at Canadian Forces Base Meaford, the offender, a senior non-commissioned member of the Canadian Forces holding the rank of sergeant, was a section commander, and in the course of a training exercise was clearly ordered by his superior, Sergeant Underhill, not to move a vehicle onto the defensive position used for the training purposes.  He violated that order by moving the vehicle onto the position for reasons which he may have thought sufficient at the time.  Whether or not those reasons were thought to be sufficient or were, in fact, sufficient is not relevant.  There is no question but that orders from superiors must be obeyed.  I have no doubt that having risen to the rank of sergeant over the course of his service in the Canadian Forces since 1995 the offender is keenly aware of the importance of strict and absolute obedience to orders.  There can be few things as mischievous to the maintenance of military discipline as the disobedience of lawful orders. 

[8]        On these facts counsel before me jointly recommend a sentence of a fine in the amount of $1,000.

[9]        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.

[10]      I consider not only the circumstances of the offence, but the circumstances of the offender.  I do not regard the dated entries in the conduct sheet as having much if any significance to an appreciation of the character of the offender before the court.  The much more recent performance reviews that have been filed give me much more insight into the offender as an individual.  He is a productive and competent member of the Canadian Forces, and in all the circumstances I accept the argument of defence counsel that the incident giving rise to this offence should be taken to be out of character for the offender generally. 

[11]      Considering all the circumstances, both of the offence and of the offender, I cannot say that the disposition proposed jointly by counsel would either bring the administration of justice into disrepute or is otherwise contrary to the public interest and I therefore accept the joint submission.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT:

[12]      FINDS you guilty of the first charge, for an offence under section 83 of the National Defence Act.

[13]      SENTENCES you to a fine in the amount of $1,000.  The fine is to be paid in monthly instalment of $200 each commencing 31 March 2013 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. 

Counsel:

Captain K Lacharité, Canadian Military Prosecutions Service

Counsel for Her Majesty the Queen

Major C.E. Thomas, Directorate of Defence Counsel Services

Counsel for Sergeant Inglis