Page 1 of 4 Citation: R. v. Corporal R.D. Grant, 2006 CM 11 Docket:S200611 STANDING COURT MARTIAL CANADA ONTARIO CANADIAN FORCES BASE KINGSTON Date: 2 June 2006 PRESIDING: COMMANDER P.J. LAMONT, M.J. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. CORPORAL R.D. GRANT (Offender) SENTENCE (Rendered Orally) [1] Corporal Grant, you have been found guilty on one charge of assault causing bodily harm contrary to section 267(b) of the Criminal Code, which is a service offence by reason of section 130 of the National Defence Act. [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 by the evidence taken on the trial, and the evidence and materials heard and accepted in the course of the sentencing phase, and 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,
Page 2 of 4 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 goals and 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] Section 139 of the National Defence Act prescribes the possible punishments that may be imposed at courts martial. Those possible punishments are limited by the provisions of the law which creates the offence and provides for a maximum punishment. And is 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 of the finding of guilt and the sentence I am about to impose. [7] The facts of this case were set out in my reasons for finding, and I will not repeat what I said then. [8] Members of the Canadian Forces are trained in the controlled and disciplined use of violence in support of Canada's national interest. I consider the wanton and unprovoked use of violence by a member of the Canadian Forces against another member, for his own personal purposes, to be a serious matter. Where this kind of conduct results in serious injury, the sentencing principles of general and specific deterrence will very frequently require that the court impose a sentence involving incarceration. I do not see any factors that mitigate the seriousness of the offence in this case. In particular, I disagree with the submission of defence counsel that there is no evidence of intention to injure. In my view, considering the offender's training and accomplishments as a boxer, I am satisfied on the evidence I have heard that the
Page 3 of 4 offender intended to disable someone he considered, for some unexplained reason, his adversary. [9] There are several mitigating circumstances that weigh with the court in this case. In particular, the offender has served with distinction since 1995 without any disciplinary infractions. He has many skills which are of great benefit to the Canadian Forces. He is extraordinarily highly thought of by his superior officers and is a consistent high performer. On the basis of the material I have been provided with, and the evidence I have heard, I am satisfied that his commanding officer's assessment is bang on when he refers to the offender in highly complimentary terms as a "soldier's soldier." I am also mindful of the fact that the offender was apparently dealing with the symptoms of depression at the time of the offence, although there is no evidence before me that this condition contributed, in any way, to the commission of the offence. I agree with the submission of defence counsel that the lapse of time since the commission of the offence, now more than 2 years ago, is a factor which should mitigate the sentence I would otherwise have imposed. [10] The prosecution seeks a weapon's prohibition order under section 147.1 of the National Defence Act, but also seeks to except from the order those things that are possessed by the offender in the course of the offender's duties as a member of the Canadian Forces. The court has a discretion as to whether to make such an order. In the absence of evidence as to the offender's duties, and the significance, if any, of a work related requirement to possess weapons, I decline to make the order sought by the prosecution. [11] The prosecution also seeks an order for the offender to provide DNA samples under section 196.14 of the National Defence Act. As the offender has been found guilty of assault causing bodily harm; that is, a primary designated offence as defined, the court is required to make the order sought by the prosecution unless the offender establishes that the impact of such an order on his privacy or security of the person is grossly disproportionate in relation to the important public interests set out in section 196.14(2) of the National Defence Act. In my view the case for gross disproportionality has not been made, and there will be an order that Corporal Grant provide suitable DNA samples. [12] Stand up, Corporal Grant. You are sentenced to detention for a period of 30 days. Pursuant to section 215 of the National Defence Act the carrying into effect of the punishment of detention is suspended. [13] The proceedings of this court martial in respect of Corporal Grant are hereby terminated.
Page 4 of 4 COMMANDER P.J. LAMONT, M.J. Counsel: Major A.M. Tamborro, Directorate of Military Prosecutions Counsel for Her Majesty the Queen Captain N.H. Weigelt, Directorate of Defence Counsel Services Counsel for Corporal R.D. Grant Lieutenant-Colonel D.T. Sweet, Directorate of Defence Counsel Services Co-Counsel for Corporal R.D. Grant
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.