Presto agitato, Maestro

DoD Military Justice maven Dwight H. Sullivan's The Military Justice Decrescendo is must reading for anyone interested in a quick but rigorous summary of the contemporary U.S. system. In addition to charting the precipitous, continuing falloff in cases, the article usefully explains why the system cannot prudently be abandoned. 

USCAAF Annual Report for 2022-23

The annual report of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces for the year ending Sept. 30, 2023 can be found here.

Transparency watch

When [Chief Fire Controlman (AEGIS) Bryce Steven] Pedicini will have his day in court remains unclear. The Navy’s public court docket shows a motions hearing took place on Wednesday of this week, but Naval Surface Forces officials declined to say what that hearing entailed when asked by Navy Times Thursday.

Command spokesman Cmdr. Arlo Abrahamson also declined to say if or when a trial date had been set.

He also declined to say why Pedicini was being tried in the military justice system.

Not much more in this report.

Why was this case tried in military court?

From Russia, with love of unusual court procedures, a sociologist and Marxist theorist had a five-year jail sentence imposed on appeal. The state appealed a military court's decision to fine Boris Kagarlitsky 600,000 rubles ($6,600ish). The military court found Mr. Kagarlitsky guilty of "justifying terrorism" for a video he produced on the 2022 Ukranian attack of the Crimean Bridge. Unhappy with the leniency the trial court showed this civilian, the prosecutors found a more receptive bench at the military court of appeals.   

While this is not the biggest news to come out of Russia recently, it is another entry in a never-ending series at this blog, "Why was this case tried in miltiary court?"

Military justice reform "urgently needed" in Ukraine

In this Kennan Institute blog post, Armenak Ohanesian, Head of Legal Studies at the Institute for Conflict Studies and Analysis of Russia (IKAR), Kyiv, argues that Ukraine's legal structure for the administration of justice in the armed forces needs a great deal of work. Excerpt:

Reforming Ukraine's military justice system can and should address both immediate and long-term needs. Enhancing the draft law to clearly articulate the functions and authority of the MJU, combined with essential Rules of Procedures and establishing credible oversight mechanisms and ethical standards, is crucial for maintaining integrity and public trust in the military justice system.

Ukraine might also seek international guidance in this regard from NATO-aligned countries to better align its military justice practices with international standards, implementing a model akin to the JAG Corps. This would not only ensure that Ukraine's military justice system was equipped to handle the complexities of modern military operations while upholding the highest standards of legal and ethical conduct, it would also reinforce Ukraine’s commitment to the rule of law and democratic values.

Reforming the military justice system in Ukraine is an urgent matter and a strategic imperative that demands immediate attention and action, of a piece with Ukraine's broader goals of democratic reform.

Polygraphs and recruitment

A judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by a man whose acceptance by the Trinidad & Tobago Defence Force was rescinded on the ground that he had twice failed a lie detector test when seeking employment with the police. Details can be found here.

Joint Panjab University-MC Law International Seminar (Hybrid Mode) with AI in the Military as one of the themes

The Panjab University, India and the Mississippi College School of Law, USA (with active assistance of GMJR Blog editor Prof Franklin Rosenblatt) are jointly holding an International Seminar titled “IMPACT OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ON CONSTITUTIONALISM AND RULE OF LAW” on 29th and 30th March, 2024.

Interestingly, there is a separate theme on AI and the Military in the seminar, encompassing, amongst others, AI & Military Justice, AI & Military Strategy, and AI & Autonomy.

Papers are being accepted now.

As a special gesture, the registration fee is waived for participants from outside India.

For more details, please scan the QR Code on the poster or email at the address provided on the same.

Been court-martialed? Don't use your military rank when you sue the government in Pakistan!

It was a lively scene at the Supreme Court of Pakistan the other day. The court was to hear a petition concerning allegations of vote-rigging in the country's recent election. The problem: the petitioner, who styled himself a retired Brigadier, wasn't in court, having left the country in a hurry for unstated reasons. Their Honors were displeased at that as well as the fact, pointed out by counsel for the respondents, that the petitioner had been convicted at a court-martial a dozen years earlier, a fact not disclosed in the petition. The petition was dismissed and the court socked him with damages of Rs500,000 -- stressing that court-martialed personnel should not refer to themselves by their former military ranks. Another lawyer who sought to address the court was threatened with referral to the bar for disciplinary action. Details are provided in this report.

Egad, bigamy!

A nice dilemma, right out of Gilbert & Sullivan's Trial by Jury* or a 2024 court-martial? The latter, methinks, judging by this account.

* "But I submit, m'lud, with all submission, To marry two at once is Burglaree! In the reign of James the Second, It was generally reckoned As a rather serious crime To marry two wives at a time. Oh, man of learning! And at this stage, it don't appear That we can settle it."

A lively hearing at the Supreme Court of India

"You speak of 'nari shakti' (woman power). Now show it here. You are in the deep end of the sea in this matter. You must come up with a policy which treats women fairly."

From yesterday's hearing before the Supreme Court of India in a case challenging the Indian Coast Guard's failure to afford permanent commissions to women. Details here.

New Zealand Court of Appeal: evidence required to justify limiting rights of military personnel

 A decision of the New Zealand Court of Appeal in Four Members of the Armed Forces v Chief of Defence Force [2024] NZCA 17 delivered on February 16, 2024 serves as a salutary reminder that, if the Crown wishes to limit the constitutional rights of military personnel, they need to adduce evidence that those particular limits can be “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” (New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA), s 5).

The requirement for members of the New Zealand Armed Forces to be vaccinated against COVID-19 has been inserted into the “individual readiness requirements” for military personnel by way of a Defence Force Order (DFO), which is a species of subordinate legislation that can be made by the Chief of Defence Force (CDF). The Court of Appeal heard that such requirements are enforced in a flexible and individualised manner by the NZDF. However, CDF took an additional step of imposing a stricter and more comprehensive policy with respect to the COVID-19 vaccination requirement, which pointed strongly towards the discharge of all non-compliant personnel. This represented a limit on the right to refuse medical treatment (NZBORA s 11) and also, the Court held, the right to freedom of religious belief (NZBORA s 15), because the Crown did not adduce evidence sufficient to satisfy the Court that a vaccine was available which did not involve the use of foetal material.

In the final analysis, the Court held that no or insufficient evidence had been put before it to prove that the stricter approach was necessary to achieve the rational objective of supporting the operational effectiveness of the Armed Forces. The Crown has the onus of proving that any limit on a right is justifiable. The appellants placed before the Court some evidence as to the comparative approach of the British armed forces, which suggested that a more flexible approach was sustainable, even in a much larger force. The Crown was unable to (or simply did not) discharge its onus in that context.

In the absence of evidence sufficient to justify the stricter approach, the Court held that it could not be justified for the purposes of NZBORA s 5 and was therefore unlawful. However, the Court provided a more limited remedy than was sought, requiring CDF to reconsider the relevant DFO in light of its judgment (while also protecting the status quo ante position of the applicants). The Court of Appeal sent a strong signal that its willingness to entertain such limits relating to COVID-19 vaccines is likely to be somewhat reduced in light of the lifting of virtually all restrictions by other arms of Government in the wake of the pandemic.

This is (at least) the second occasion within the last two years where the courts have found that they could not uphold a COVID-19 rights limitation relating to the Armed Forces, due to the presentation of no or inadequate evidence in support of the limit. The first was Yardley v Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety [2022] NZHC 291. Readers will draw their own conclusions about the lessons to be learnt for defendants (ie Government), depending on the degree of deference which the relevant jurisdiction accords to military decision-making. For plaintiffs, this decision underscores the value of comparative analysis.

Disclaimer: The author was counsel in earlier challenges to COVID-19 vaccine mandates on behalf of both military and healthcare personnel. Those challenges, which took place during the height of the pandemic, were unsuccessful.

FY23 caseload

According to the TJAGS' annual reports, there were 1290 general, special and "short"-martials during FY23.

Down memory lane on Presidents' Day

Fort Jefferson

Bet you didn't know President Abraham Lincoln pardoned an ancestor of President Joe Biden. The Washington Post has the story here. Excerpt:

[Joseph] Holt’s report arrived in late August, and Lincoln made his decision, writing, “Pardon for unexecuted part of punishment. A. Lincoln. Sep. 1. 1864.” Shortly thereafter, the War Department issued Special Orders No. 296, freeing [Moses J.] Robinette from prison.

After more than a month on sweltering Dry Tortugas, Robinette returned to his family in Maryland, where he took up farming again. He lived into the 20th century, dying at his daughter’s home in 1903. While his brief obituary eulogized him as a “man of education and gentlemanly attainments,” no mention was made of his wartime court-martial or his fleeting connection to Abraham Lincoln.

Supreme Court of India directs reinstatement of recruits dismissed for submission of false certificates

The Supreme Court of India has directed the reinstatement of recruits who were dismissed from service on account of “fake relationship certificates” allegedly submitted by them, with all consequential benefits, in a case titled Ex-Recruit Babanna Machched vs Union of India and others, decided on 09.02.2024.

To fill up a large number of vacancies of enrolled personnel (enlisted ranks), priority was provided to certain categories of personnel which included sons and grandsons of servicemen and ex-servicemen; brothers and other near relatives of those killed in battle or who died in service; wards who were fully dependent upon servicemen or ex-servicemen; sportsmen of merit. It was said that priority should be open to the above categories and in case of more vacancies, personnel from open category based on merit may be taken.

With regard to the above news, the Appellants had applied and was subsequently selected and enrolled in the Army by the Maratha Light Infantry Regimental Centre. After 3 years of service, the Appellants were terminated from the Army along with others after a show cause notice was issued to several soldiers alleging that they had obtained enrolment in the Army either on the basis of the fake sportsperson certificates or false relationship certificates. The issue arose if the Appellants had submitted any relationship certificate during the time of enrolment in the Army. The Armed Forces Tribunal affirmed the discharge/dismissal order simply holding that the relationship certificates produced by the Appellants have been found to be fake upon verification. A direct appeal was then filed in Supreme Court wherein the Appellants produced the applications submitted for the purpose of enrolment/recruitment in which it was clearly stated that they had not claimed any special status and had stated themselves to be of general category. It was shown that no relationship certificate was ever produced and there was no mention of the same in the application form.

It has now been held by the Supreme Court that the Appellants were enrolled in the Army under open category and not under any special category and no relationship certificate was never produced or mentioned in the applications. It was ordered that the Appellants be reinstated in the Army with all consequential benefits. It was also observed by relying upon precedents that the government cannot change or shift its stand on the basis of which the Appellants were initially dismissed from service. The judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal has been overturned by the Supreme Court of India. 

A detailed report on the case is available on SCC Online.

(With inputs from Ms Manini Kaur, office of Navdeep Singh, Advocate, Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, India)

Necrology: Judge Alan I. Herrman

Today's New York Times includes a long and interesting obituary for Alan I. Herman, who died last week at age 87. A native New Yorker, he served for many years in the U.S. Air Force, including five years teaching at the U.S. Air Force Academy and another five as a judge of the U.S. Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals. After retiring from the military, he became Clerk of Court at the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. He was also a mediator for the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Judge Herman earned his bachelor's degree at NYU, his law degree at Syracuse, and his LL.M. at Yale. Unexpected fact: he was a member of the Alexandria, Va., Chapter of the Barbershop Harmony Society.

Further information can be found here.

Sincere condolences to the Herman family.

The Lake Plav Executions, Dec. 25, 1915

For a fascinating and disturbing account of the trial and immediate execution of 21 Serbian soldiers during World War I, see Danilo Šarenac, Capital Punishment in the Serbian Army: The Case of Execution at Lake Plav in 1915, Currents of Hist. No. 3/23, at 40-61 (Nov. 15, 2023). The article, which is available through the Central and Eastern European Online Library, tells the shocking tale of how one Serbian commander, Col. (later General) Aleksandar K. Stojšić (1874-1937), saw to it that deserters were shot en masse after the briefest of trials and a threat to shoot every tenth soldier in the regiment. The author notes that the commander directed that all 21 accused be shot even though the court-martial had convicted only six. The commander even ordered that those sentenced to death be "slaughtered like cattle," rather than shot, but this was foiled when the regimental butcher failed to show up.

Under Serbia's 1901 Law on the Procedure of Military Courts in Criminal Offences, the court-martial would have consisted of four officers and one noncommissioned officer. Four votes were required for a death sentence, and the proceedings were to be completed within 24 hours or three days at most.

Col. (and judge and civil libertarian) Marvin H. Morse, 94, passes away

Let's take a moment to reflect on the legacy of Colonel Marvin Henry Morse, USAFR (Ret.), a former JAG, civil rights attorney, and administrative judge, who died in Florida on 11 February 2024 at 94. His life was one of service to his country and the rule of law.

Colonel Morse was born in Mount Vernon, New York in 1929. After graduating from Colgate University in 1949 and Yale Law School in 1952, he served on active duty as an Air Force judge advocate from 1952 to 1956. Thereafter, he transferred to the Air Force Reserve and engaged in private practice in Louisville, Kentucky, during which time he was part of a team of four that represented “Shuffling Sam” Thompson on behalf of the Kentucky Civil Liberties Union before the Supreme Court of the United States.

Thompson was convicted of loitering and disorderly conduct by the Police Court of Louisville. The loitering charge resulted from what police officers described as Thompson’s dancing by himself in a cafe; the disorderly conviction was for arguing with those police officers about his arrest for loitering. At trial, Thompson testified that when arrested he was waiting for a bus to take him home and had money to pay for the bus. He entered a bus schedule into evidence, establishing that such a bus was due within 30 minutes. The cafe manager testified that Thompson frequently patronized the cafe and he had never objected to Sam’s presence. Despite Thompson’s claims that a conviction would deny him liberty and property without due process of law, the court convicted him of both offenses and fined him $10.

Despite not meeting the jurisdictional requirements for review by any other Kentucky court, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, most likely because vagrancy charges were often used against black men without justification. The Court’s opinion in Thompson v. City of Louisville was a complete victory for Thompson. Justice Black, speaking for a unanimous Court, found “no evidence whatever in the record to support these convictions. Just as ‘Conviction upon a charge not made would be sheer denial of due process,’ so is it a violation of due process to convict and punish a man without evidence of his guilt.” Although a victory for civil rights, the opinion had little effect on Thompson’s life; at the time it was handed down, he was serving a six-month prison term on four other misdemeanor charges. In addition, he had been arrested more than 50 times before his Supreme Court case.

Colonel Morse moved to Washington, DC, in 1962, where he worked for various federal agencies over the next 40 years, including the Department of the Navy, the Department of Defense, the General Services Administration, and the U.S. Postal Service. An expert in administrative law, he became an Administrative Law Judge in 1973 and served as a judge for the Federal Power Commission, the Postal Rate Commission, the Civil Aeronautics Board, the Small Business Administration, and the Department of Justice's Executive Office for Immigration Review. For several years, he managed the ALJ program for the Office of Personnel Management. In 1980, he was elected to the American Law Institute. He was also active for many years with the Federal Bar Association (serving as its President in 1995-96), as well as Democratic Party and Jewish organizations.

Sincere condolences to Col. Morse's family.

___

Thanks to Col. James A. Young, USAF (Ret) for this post.

Canada's Military Police Complaints Commission - recent news

Last week, Christopher Nardi published an article in the National Post, claiming that the Chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission (MPCC) released a "scathing decision" regarding military police policy relating to the investigation of "criminal offences of a sexual nature" and the transfer of such matters to the civil police. This report was the subject of a brief Global Military Justice Reform post earlier this week.

The National Post headline may have been a bit misleading, since the principal decision was to discontinue a Public Interest Investigation (PII), which the Chair had initiated only three weeks earlier. 

The National Post article does address the issue of whether or not the previous Minister of National Defence (MND), Anita Anand, issued direction that the current MND, Bill Blair, claims was not issued. However, as is often the case in our 'reduced attention span' world, the article only scratches the surface of the issues. 

For more commentary, see: 

Rory Fowler "MPCC Criticism of the Military Police" (15 February 2024) online: Law Office of Rory G Fowler, blog <http://roryfowlerlaw.com/mpcc-criticism-of-the-military-police/>

Senior officers of the Armed Forces of Liberia to face court-martial?

Reports reaching [The Inquirer Newspaper] say that some senior officers of the Armed Forces of Liberia will be subjected to the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for their alleged back-stage involvement in the week-long protest that led to the resignation of the Minister of National Defense, Retired Maj. Gen. Prince C. Johnson. 

Mutiny is an open rebellion or disrespect against constituted authorities, especially by soldiers against their senior officers. . . . 

Minister Johnson’s resignation followed a nationwide protestation by some women who claimed to be wives of personnel of the Armed Forces of Liberia and operated under the banner ‘Army Wives Association of Liberia,’ who described him (Johnson) as a “dreadful, power-drunk, inhumane, and impassionate individual. . . . 

However, the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of Liberia assured that a thorough investigation will be carried out into the officers who led their wives into the streets to disrupt the celebration of the 67th Armed Forces Day and that a report should be made to him within a two weeks.

A case of the slows in Cameroon's military justice system

Human Rights Watch has posted this report on deficiencies in the slow-moving military trial arising from a massacre of civilians four years ago today. Excerpt:

In December 2020, a trial opened before a military court in Cameroon’s capital Yaoundé, marking an important step towards accountability for the massacre. However, the trial has dragged on and been marred by irregularities. Hearings have been postponed multiple times, victims’ families have minimal participation in the proceedings, and the court has refused to admit key evidence, including death certificates. Senior officers have not been arrested or charged.

During the last real hearing on the massacre on November 16, 2023, witnesses did speak, and some investigative reports were presented. But since then, the trial has been postponed three times, casting doubt on the ability of the military judicial system to deliver accountability for military abuse. It is scheduled to restart this week.

Villanova symposium issue

The Villanova Law Review has just published several articles on military justice in its latest issue. These are online and can be found here. The issue includes papers originally presented at a National Institute of Military Justice Symposium symposium held at Villanova Law School last year. Among the authors: Franklin D. Rosenblatt, Robert Leider, Dwight H. Sullivan, James A. Young, and the Editor. There's also a fireside chat with Judge M. Tia Johnson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

Tired of retirees?

Prof. Robert Leider's article Retiring Military Jurisdiction Over Military Retirees appears in the latest issue of the Villanova Law Review. It can be found here. His conclusion is that retired regulars should be subject to court-martial jurisdiction only when they commit offenses after having been recalled to active duty.

Who should investigate sex offenses in the Canadian Armed Forces?

Should the victim of a sex offense have to decide whether a case should be tried in the civilian courts rather than a court-martial? Following is an excerpt from the Feb. 6, 2024 decision of Tammy Tremblay, chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission of Canada, in In the Matter of a Complaint to the Military Police Complaints Commission (MPCC) into Allegations that the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal did not Implement a Ministerial Direction to Transfer the Investigation of Criminal Offences of a Sexual Nature to the Civilian Police:

18. I will highlight, however, that, Madame [Louise] Arbour, in her Report of the Independent External Comprehensive Review, explained at great length why, in her expert opinion, leaving to the victim the burden of deciding where a sexual assault would be investigated was not in the public interest. At page 93 of her report, she concluded as follows:

In my view, requiring the victim’s consent before deciding whether to investigate or prosecute a crime in the military or civilian justice system merely puts an unrealistic burden on the victim. It puts victims in an untenable position, requiring them to make a decision about which system is likely to work better for them, with little understanding of the factors at play. They may regret their decision down the road if the trial results in an acquittal and may be left forever wondering, “what if I had chosen the other system” In the end, I do not believe this serves any public interest.

19. It is difficult to reconcile the recommendations that Madame Arbour expertly stitched together following an in-depth and informed analysis of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces, which she laid out in her comprehensive report, with the decision of the CFPM to not transfer every file regarding criminal offences of a sexual nature to civilian police. The wording of the CFPM’s policy is particularly concerning given the clear and public support of those recommendations by the Ministers of National Defence. It is puzzling that the CFPM references Madame Arbour’s recommendation in his policy, while implementing directions that contradict it.

20. Equally troubling is that the policy outlines what it calls a victim-centric, trauma-informed approach, without the corollary articulation of what this means in this context, or what considerations must be taken into account while applying that victim-centric, trauma-informed approach. Indeed, it is insufficient to simply state that such an approach must be taken. It must be accompanied by written considerations that outline why and how this approach is victim-centred and trauma-informed and paired with appropriate training on those approaches. In my view, in its current iteration, this policy does not meet the victim-centric, trauma-informed threshold, and in fact, just as Madame Arbour cautioned, puts an unfair burden on victims.

21. In the best interest of those victims of criminal offences of a sexual nature, I recommend that the CFPM review his policy with the view of implementing the full transfer of investigations regarding criminal offences of a sexual nature to civilian police, in the true spirit of a meaningful victim-centric, trauma-informed approach. This would go a long way towards enhancing trust in the military police.

The National Post has this news report. 

Where should this case be tried?

Two Spanish soldiers died in a training exercise. The Military Penal Code does not cover intentional homicide, the decedents' families contend. Should the case remain in the military justice system, where lesser charges might ensue, or should it be investigated by the civilian courts? Details here.

A possible encore for military courts in Taiwan

In 2013, Taiwan abolished its military courts. Now there's a suggestion that they need to be revived. The Taipei Times reports:

A Legislative Research Bureau report recommends that under special circumstances major misconduct or offenses by soldiers could be addressed by a provisional military court to expedite trials.

Military officials and experts have said that the restoration this year of one-year compulsory military service would likely lead to more incidents of fighting and insubordination, and without military tribunals, which were abolished in 2013, they would be unable to quickly address certain offenses.

The current civilian court system could take too long to address matters, which would negatively affect troop morale, therefore the government must finds ways to expedite the trial process for soldiers, the bureau’s report said.

R v Edmundson -- the last of the GOFO allegations

This morning, the trial of Vice Admiral (VAdm) Haydn Edmundson (retired) quietly resumed in an Ottawa courtroom, before Justice Matthew Webber, of the Ontario Court of Justice.  Trials before the Ontario Court of Justice (a provincial court) are conducted without juries. 

The charges, which date back to 1991, include one count of "sexual assault" and one count of "commits an indecent act".  The former charge cannot be tried by court martial, as it predates the amendment of s 70 of the National Defence Act (NDA) by Bill C-25, which was enacted in 1998.  The amendment of s 70 came into force 1 September 1999, and permitted allegations of sexual assault (and variations of that offence), arising within Canada, to be prosecuted before court martial under the Code of Service Discipline.  Now, a generation after that amendment was made - which was done at the urging of various "stakeholders" and public sentiment - similar stakeholders are insisting that the amendment be reversed.

VAdm Edmundson (ret'd) is the last of the General Officers/Flag Officers (GOFO) - at least those who were actually charged - to face trial.  Thus far, none of the GOFO accused of wrong-doing have been convicted.  There was only one finding of guilt: General Jon Vance (retired), a former Chief of the Defence Staff, pled guilty of "obstruct justice" before a civil court of criminal jurisdiction at the end of March 2022, and received a conditional discharge.  This resulted in a finding of guilt, but without a conviction or criminal record (provided that the offender successfully completes the probationary conditions for the discharge).

VAdm Edmundson, like most of the GOFO accused of wrong-doing, faces charges relating to allegations arising at a time long before he became a Flag Officer.  At the time of the allegations, he was a Lieutenant-Commander.  He has pled not guilty and is represented by one of Canada's pre-eminent criminal defence counsel, Brian Greenspan.

Egypt expands military jurisdiction

Egypt is expanding the jurisdiction of military courts far beyond what human rights jurisprudence tolerates. According to this report:

The military judiciary is to be empowered to address crimes deemed to harm public food security with the authority to prosecute a range of market manipulation activities under new legislation passed by the House of Representatives this week.

Unlike in most military trials, however, those handed felony sentences on charges of “harm to vital facilities” will be able to appeal the decision.

The law also upholds the military’s law enforcement powers over any facility or utility defined as a public good.

*  *  *

The scope of what the law entails could also be widened, since it makes provision for the president, or anyone delegated by the president, to identify actions that may pose a threat to “the essential resources of the state and national security” in consultation with the National Defense Council.

Choking a superior is a Code of Service Discipline offence

On 31 January 2024, the Times Colonist newspaper in Victoria reported on a court martial in which a Leading Seaman (described as a Sailor, First Class) pled guilty to an offence under s 84 of the National Defence Act (NDA), "struck a superior", and was sentenced to 14 days detention at the Canadian Forces Service Prison and Detention Barracks (CFSPDB) and a reprimand.

While the full judgment in R v Thoo, Court Martial Docket 202322 is not yet available publicly, the Chief Military Judge website does provide some general information.   The article from the Times Colonist provides greater detail.