R. v. Crabtree-Megahy, 2017 CM 1002

COURT MARTIAL Citation: R. v. Crabtree-Megahy, 2017 CM 1002 Date: 20170214 Docket: 201626 Standing Court Martial 3rd Canadian Division Support Base Edmonton Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Between: Her Majesty the Queen - and - Corporal S.R. Crabtree-Megahy, Offender Before: Colonel M. Dutil, C.M.J. REASONS FOR SENTENCE (Orally) [ 1 ] Corporal Crabtree-Megahy, you have admitted your guilt to one count of conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline under the National Defence Act .

The statement of particulars read as follows: Particulars : In that he, on 7 December 2015, at Canadian Forces Base Borden, stated “oh, that ass is unreal” and “she does not have much of an ass”, or words to that effect. [ 2 ] We are in the presence of a joint submission by counsel and they are seeking a punishment of a fine in the amount of $500. This joint submission is made in the context of the current applicable law in Canada with regard to joint submissions and, as I stated earlier during submissions, the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v.

Anthony-Cook , 2016 SCC 43 , exposed the legal test that trial judges must apply when they are facing a joint submission by counsel. [ 3 ] Unless the joint submission is contrary to public interest or will bring the administration of justice into disrepute, the Court cannot depart from it. The Supreme Court was absolutely clear that it is a desirable practice for prosecution and defence to agree on joint

submissions on sentence, but it also highlights the fact that they are responsible and accountable for those joint submissions. In other words, the judge cannot change their recommendation by tweaking it a little bit. The judge has no role to play in doing that if counsel has done their work. Agreements of that nature are commonplace and they are vitally important to the well-being of any justice system, whether it is the military justice system or the criminal justice system, because it frees up resources and allows their allocation to needier cases.

We have to trust the judgement, the experience and the competence of counsel in the legal system. [ 4 ] Joint submissions have many benefits, one of course is that the prosecution can secure a conviction when its case may have some weaknesses, but most importantly, it economizes resources by not having to call witnesses, spares plaintiffs or victims from having to come and testify about the experience that led to the charges, things of that nature. It also assists the defence in the sense that the accused knows what to expect in terms of sentencing.

So, it provides both parties with a high probability that if they discharge their burden, their recommendation will be accepted. [ 5 ] I have significant information from the Statement of Circumstances and the Agreed Statement of Facts. Both documents read as follows: “STATEMENT OF CIRCUMSTANCES 1. At all relevant times, Corporal Crabtree-Megahy was a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, Regular Force. He was posted to the 1 st Battalion, Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry, and was a Vehicle Technician. 2.

On 22 July 2015, the Chief of the Defence Staff issued CANFORGEN 130/15 entitled, CDS Message to Canadian Armed Forces on Harmful Sexual Behaviour. On 14 August 2015, the CDS Operation Order – Operation HONOUR was issued. These documents were widely distributed and much publicized. Corporal Crabtree-Megahy was aware of the general content of these documents. 3. In December 2015, he attended Canadian Forces Base Borden for a career course. 4. Between the hours of approximately 1700 and 1730 hours on 7 December 2016, Corporal Crabtree-Megahy attended the dining hall, Building S-164, at Canadian Forces Base Borden.

He was in civilian attire, as were many in the dining hall. 5. During a period of twenty minutes, Corporal Crabtree-Megahy was observed by others nearby in the dining hall. He made a series of derogatory comments regarding the various women that passed by his table. Included in those comments, were statements to the effect of “She doesn’t have much of an ass” and “ooh that ass is unreal.” In the case of the latter statement, he physically swung his head around to watch the woman walk by. 6.

Corporal Crabtree-Megahy’s comments and behaviour were observed by Petty Officer Second Class Attridge, who was sitting across from him. Having completed her meal, Petty Officer Second Class Attridge approached Corporal Crabtree-Megahy. She dressed him down for his comments. She advised him that women in the Canadian Armed Forces were not to be objectified and that he should look into Operation HONOUR. Corporal Crabtree-Megahy maintained a smug and dismissive demeanour toward Petty Officer Second Class Attridge and her comments.” “AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.

At all relevant times, Corporal Crabtree-Megahy was a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, Regular Force. He was posted to the 1 st Battalion, Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry, and was a Vehicle Technician. 2. On 23 August 2016, Initial Counselling for a conduct deficiency was initiated for Corporal Crabtree-Megahy, pursuant to Defence Administrative Order and Directive 5019-4. The conduct deficiency arose from Corporal Crabtree-Megahy’s comments and attitude during the incidents on 7 and 9 December 2015.

3. The monitoring period lasted from 24 August 2016 to 24 November 2016. 4. As part of the monitoring period, Corporal Crabtree-Megahy was required to research Canadian Armed Forces policy with regard to inappropriate sexual behaviour, and behaviour in the workplace. 5.

On 11 December 2016, it was assessed that Corporal Crabtree-Megahy had overcome his deficiency and the monitoring period was formally ended.” [ 6 ] Those documents provide a complete set of facts that led to the joint submission and more particularly, the fact that in August 2016, Corporal Crabtree-Megahy had counselling for conduct deficiency and he has done well and is still doing well as a result. He has learned from this and that is certainly a step in the right direction.

I am satisfied with the circumstances that were provided to the Court as well as the rationale supporting the criteria set by the Supreme Court of Canada. It is in the public interest to accept it and unless there is anything that was not provided to me that will have me change my mind, I see nothing here that is not accurate and relevant. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 7 ] FINDS you guilty of that charge. [ 8 ] SENTENCES you to a fine in the amount of $500. Counsel: Lieutenant-Commander S. Torani for the Director of Military Prosecutions Major C.E. Thomas, Defence Counsel Services Counsel for Corporal S.R.

Crabtree-Megahy