Military
police officers operate with a duality of roles. On the one hand, they are
peace officers under section 2 of the Criminal Code and are an autonomous
policing body within the CAF. On the other hand, they are members of the Canadian Armed Forces, subject to the military chain of command and are duty-bound to follow
orders from superior officers. They are subject to
the authority of the Canadian Forces Provost
Marshal, the highest-ranking military police officer.
However,pursuant to subsection 18.5(1), (2) of the National Defence Act (NDA) the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff (VCDS) has statutory powers of ‘general supervision’ and canissue ‘general instructions or guidelines to the Provost Marshal.
Truth be told, Military Police independence is compromised by
way of subsection 18.5(3) of the NDA which permits the VCDS to ‘issue instructions or guidelines in
writing in respect of a particular investigation’. Under this statutory power,
the VCDS is able to provide instructions and guidelines in specific cases which
could presumably include instructions to and/or not to investigate a particular
person or matter.
This is problematic because it strips the Military Police of
the ability to freely investigate without the interference of the military
chain of command or an executive arm of Government. Moreover, there is no
requirement to make these instructions or guidelines public. It is therefore difficult
to understand why the VCDS should retain such power.
The military police should be allowed to
proceed with an investigation without interference from non-military police
command structures, including the VCDS.
Just like command influence should not
play a role with respect to the laying of charges under the Code of Service
Discipline, the military chain of command should not be permitted to instruct
the conduct of a military police investigation in a specific case.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are subject to moderation and must be submitted under your real name. Anonymous comments will not be posted (even though the form seems to permit them).