Alleged Mutiny with a Bounty of Issues

This is an update to an earlier post about a pending prosecution of a Canadian Reservist engaged, while in uniform, of some sort of political activity.

​Rory Fowler, of Canada, friend and colleague, has this to report about a pending court-martial for what he terms "A slightly more surreal matter involves the charge of 'endeavouring to persuade another person to join a mutiny',  (as well as 'scandalous conduct by an officer', against an OCdt of the CIC dating back to December 2020. This is noteworthy both due to the rarity that such a charge would be laid and the circumstances of the alleged misconduct."

OCdt LK appeared in uniform at what could be characterized as an 'anti-lockdown' and 'anti-vaccination' rally in Toronto. [F]ollowing his appearance at the rally - a video of which went 'viral' on social media - an investigation was initiated and LK was apparently relieved from performance of military duty, or was constructively barred from performing any military duties.  It was also reported that his uniforms were seized.

Ironically, had he not appeared in uniform, he would not have fallen within the jurisdiction of the Code of Service Discipline (CSD). By virtue of wearing his uniform, he triggered the jurisdictional provision at  sub-para 60(1)(c)(ii) of the NDA.  Otherwise, none of the other jurisdictional criteria likely would have applied. [Query, would that be the same here?]

Your loyal servant is unaware of any charge of 'offences related to mutiny' that have been successfully prosecuted under the CSD since the 'modern' NDA was enacted in 1950 [about the same time as the UCMJ]. I have certainly not found any reported case from the past 30 years.  Similarly, 'scandalous conduct by an officer' is rarely charged, and some of the more recent examples resulted in findings of 'not guilty'.  (However, in R v Lieutenant (Navy) Edwards, 2008 CM 2017, the accused was acquitted of the charge of "scandalous behaviour unbecoming an officer," but was found guilty of the charge of "behaving in a disgraceful manner" which had been charged in the alternative.)

There are some noteworthy aspects of these charges beyond their rarity.  Neither charge may be tried by summary trial [nor may that happen under the UCMJ], which will necessitate convening a court martial.  In light of the rarity of the charges, the potential complexity of some of the issues, and the potential for one or more applications under the  Charter, a court martial is the appropriate military tribunal.

Although these circumstances will likely evoke comments or memes relating to the 'Mutiny on the Bounty' [eh, done], a charge under the NDA should not be confused with the related charge of 'mutiny with violence' or even the charge of 'mutiny without violence'.  The offence is established where a person, subject to the CSD:

(a) causes or conspires with any other person to cause a mutiny,

(b) endeavours to persuade any person to join in a mutiny,

(c) being present, does not use his utmost endeavours to suppress a mutiny, or

(d) being aware of an actual or intended mutiny, does not without delay inform his superior officer thereof.  It appears that OCdt LK has been charged based upon the second criterion.

Although the maximum punishment for such an offence is 'life imprisonment' (which is the maximum sentence permitted under the CSD and under the Criminal Code in Canada), in light of the circumstances of the alleged misconduct, and the other charge that has been laid, there is a reduced likelihood that OCdt LK would face a punishment involving imprisonment, if he is found guilty of the alleged offence.

Interestingly, the offence of 'scandalous conduct by an officer'  (or, 'behaving in a scandalous manner unbecoming an officer') has a limited range of potential sentences.  An officer found guilty of these offences can be sentenced to Dismissal from Her Majesty's Service or Dismissal with Disgrace from Her Majesty's Service. [Seems that the Canadians have an officer form of a BCD and DD?]  In light of the nature of the offence, this limited range of sentences is not illogical.
Certainly, in light of the rarity for which these offences are charged, this matter has the potential to define elements of the offences as well as parameters for sentencing.

(Some editing done and citations omitted.) A fuller explanation is here.

​Cheers.