R v Robinson, 2011 CM 2013

COURT MARTIAL Citation: R v Robinson, 2011 CM 2013 Date: 20110607 Docket: 201044 Standing Court Martial Canadian Forces Base Gagetown Oromocto, New Brunswick, Canada Between: Her Majesty the Queen - and - Ex-Corporal H.G. Robinson, Offender Before: Commander P.J. Lamont, M.J. REASONS FOR SENTENCE [ 1 ] Mr Robinson, having accepted and recorded your plea of guilty to the third charge in the charge sheet, a charge that you absented yourself without leave, the court now finds you guilty of the third 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 guide the court in the exercise of its discretion in determining a fit and proper sentence in each case. These principles inform my discretion and they tell me that 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 previous decisions of other courts in similar cases, not out of a slavish adherence to precedent, but because it appeals to our common sense of justice that we all share that similar cases should be dealt with in similar ways. But the court is also mindful of the many factors that distinguish the particular case it is dealing with, both the aggravating circumstances that may call for a more severe sentence and the mitigating circumstances that may reduce a sentence. [ 3 ] The goals and objectives of sentencing have been considered and expressed in many 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 absolutely essential 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 arriving at a fit sentence in an individual case, but I do not lose sight of the fact that each of the sentencing goals calls for

the attention of the sentencing court, and a fit sentence should reflect a wise blending of these goals tailored to the particular circumstances of the case. [ 4 ] I told you when you tendered your plea of guilty that

section 139 of the National Defence Act prescribes the possible punishments that may be imposed at court martial. Those possible punishments are limited, of course, 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, adverted to by the prosecutor in the course of his address, 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 for the offender of both the finding of guilt and the sentence I am about to pronounce. [ 5 ] This is not a difficult case; the facts are straightforward. You failed to appear for work, having misadvised your superiors that you were required by urgent family circumstances to be elsewhere. You knew this at the time to be a falsehood, and, as a result, you were absent from work for a period of hours before your falsehood was discovered and you were ordered to come back to work.

I am aware from the materials presented to me in the course of this hearing and from listening to the submissions of the lawyers that there is more to this story than the court has been made aware of. It is apparent to me that at the time of this offence, you were dealing with personal difficulties that have not been explored in any detail, but that appears to me to be the reason, the principal reason, underlying the commission of this particular offence. [ 6 ] On these facts, both the prosecutor and your counsel agree as to a recommended disposition by way of sentence.

As you know from listening to the prosecutor, it is the responsibility of the court to arrive at a fit sentence, but in a case like this, where the lawyers agree on what they think should be the fit sentence, that recommendation carries significant weight with the court.

The law is clear that unless the recommended disposition would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or is otherwise contrary to the public interest, the court should accept the recommendation as to sentence made by the lawyers. [ 7 ] In this case, I have no hesitation in agreeing with the submission that has been put before me that the recommended disposition here is well within the range of sentencing that is customarily awarded for offences of this nature committed in circumstances of this nature by an individual in your personal circumstances at the time. [ 8 ] I am mindful of your plea of guilty and I accept that it is a genuine demonstration of remorse on your part for this offence.

It is clear from the testimony that you gave under oath earlier that you have got lots to be remorseful for. On the information that I have been provided with, you had a thriving career in the Canadian Forces. I have no reason to suppose that you were anything other that a productive and loyal and courageous member of the Canadian Forces. It is much to be regretted that by reason of circumstances of which I do not believe I am entirely familiar, that you are no longer able to service your country in this capacity.

I am mindful of your personal domestic circumstances, and in all the circumstances, I am satisfied that the proposed recommendation of counsel should be accepted. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 9 ] SENTENCES you to a reprimand and a fine in the amount of $1000. Five hundred dollars of the fine is to be paid forthwith. The balance of $500 is to be paid in equal monthly instalments of $250 each on 31 July and 31 August 2011. Counsel: Lieutenant-Commander D.T. Reeves, Canadian Military Prosecution Services Counsel for Her Majesty the Queen Lieutenant-Colonel T. Sweet, Directorate of Defence Counsel Services

Counsel for Ex-Corporal H.G. Robinson