R. v. Trull, 2015 CM 1010

COURT MARTIAL Citation: R. v. Trull , 2015 CM 1010 Date: 20150610 Docket: 201516 Standing Court Martial Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt Victoria, British Columbia, Canada Between: Her Majesty the Queen - and - Leading Seaman S.N. Trull, Offender Before: Colonel M. Dutil, C.M.J. REASONS FOR SENTENCE (Orally) [ 1 ] Leading Seaman Trull, a member of the Reserve component, admitted her guilt to one count of conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline, contrary to

section 129 of the National Defence Act for having used cannabis (marihuana) contrary to

Article 20.04 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces (QR&O). [ 2 ] The events took place when she was undergoing training and residing at Canadian Forces Base Borden in July 2014. [ 3 ] The relevant facts, revealed in the Statement of Circumstances, indicate that Leading Seaman Trull was residing in the barracks and sharing a room with another person. On 14 July 2014, her room-mate found a small piece of rolling paper that contained a small amount of clear crystals on the floor of the room and she believed that this substance was a drug. The room-mate reported this to her chain of command.

The room-mate’s chain of command and a member of the military police then escorted that person back to the room and seized the rolling paper that contained the clear crystals. A member of the military police administered a narcotic identification kit test for the clear crystals, which resulted in a positive test for methamphetamine. On 17 July 2014, the military police obtained the consent of both the room-mate and Leading Seaman Trull to search the room for methamphetamine. While searching the room, Leading

Seaman Trull approached the members of the military police conducting the search and she stated, “Can I show you something?” Leading Seaman Trull then retrieved a small grey purse from her locker, which was located in the room, and pulled out a clear Ziploc bag, which contained a leafy marihuana-like substance. Then Leading Seaman Trull stated, “I have pot here.” Leading Seaman Trull was aware of and understood the Canadian Forces Drug Control Program and Policy. She had signed a declaration on 29 January 2013 agreeing to comply with the Canadian Forces Drug Control Program and Policy and indicated her understanding of the QR&O

Article 20.04, specifically the use of drugs is prohibited. On 17 July 2014, Leading Seaman Trull did use marihuana, knowing that she contravened the order in question. Leading Seaman Trull did not use methamphetamine. Leading Seaman Trull was cooperative and forthcoming during the investigation into this matter. [ 4 ] The prosecution and defence have made a joint submission on sentence and they recommend that Leading Seaman Trull be sentenced to a fine in the amount of $500.

Although the court is not bound by this joint recommendation, it can only reject it if the recommendation is contrary to the public interest or if it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. I must say that their proposal falls within the acceptable range for this type of offence. [ 5 ] The fundamental purpose of sentencing at courts martial is to contribute to the respect of the law and the maintenance of military discipline. [ 6 ] The use of drugs here took place on a defence establishment as Leading Seaman Trull was undergoing training.

Already a serious offence objectively, the subjective gravity in this context is more important. However, there are significant mitigating circumstances here: (

a) a plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity, and that is, in this case, a sign of remorse and full acceptance of responsibility; (

b) also, the absence of any criminal or disciplinary record; and (

c) she has performed very well, as noted in the evidence filed during the sentencing hearing and she has the strong support of her chain of command. [ 7 ] The court accepts that the proposed sentence is the minimal sentence in the circumstances to achieve general and specific deterrence, as well as denunciation of the conduct. As I stated, it is not contrary to public interest and this recommendation would not bring the administration of military justice into disrepute. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 8 ] FINDS you guilty of the first charge for conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline under

section 129 of the National Defence Act . [ 9 ] SENTENCES you to a fine in the amount of $500. Counsel: The Director of Military Prosecutions, as represented by Lieutenant-Commander S. Torani Major S.L. Collins, Defence Counsel Services, Counsel for Leading Seaman S.N. Trull