Sui Not-So-Generous: The Unconstitutionality of Canadian Court Martial Jury Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In April 2008, the Court Martial Appeal Court (CMAC) decided that the Prosecution's authority elect mode of trial (judge alone, or judge with panel of fact-triers) denied an accused Canadian Forces (CF) member of his right a fair trial in a way that was inconsistent with principles of fundamental justice, contrary ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The CMAC decision, by forcing an accused now make an election as mode of trial, has created an environment in which military jury trials may become much more prevalent, so all stakeholders within the military justice system now have a renewed incentive satisfy themselves that such trials adhere the constitutional principles of fundamental justice. Careful study reveals, however, that military trials by rank-influenced and unrepresentative (jury) panels violate accused CF members' constitutional rights to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. Furthermore, the Charter violations cannot be saved under s. 1 as reasonable limits prescribed by law that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Although General Courts Martial are recognized as part of a legitimately distinct military justice system that has coordinate jurisdiction over elements of Canadian criminal law, the tribunals disproportionately impair constitutional rights of accused personnel.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.153 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".