Article content continued

Photo by Darren Makowichuk/Postmedia

Several members of the military, charged with offences covered by the Criminal Code, had argued that they had a right to a trial by jury instead of military tribunal, particularly when the charge made against them did not relate to military service. To be clear, they weren’t saying that there shouldn’t be laws specifically covering matters military; the argument was more narrow — while military courts should see to violations of military law, members of the military should be tried in civilian courts (or at least have the right to be) for charges unrelated to military law or service. Lower courts had produced conflicting rulings on this, leaving it to the Supreme Court to settle the matter.

They did. In a 5-2 decision, the court found that members of the military do not have a right to trials by jury in civilian courts. The majority ruled that the issue, despite all the legal complexity, is fundamentally simple — if you are a member of the military, you are subject to military law and can be tried in military courts. (The two dissenting judges argued that there should be strong link between the charge and military service.)

Photo by Meghan Balogh/The Whig-Standard/Postmedia Network

I won’t inflict anymore legalese upon you. But I did find the decision interesting because it amazed me how much time and energy had to be invested through numerous rulings and judgments and untold time and attention in the courts, all to conclude that the military is … unique.

It’s bizarre for a very specific reason: the Charter very specifically carved out an exemption to the right to jury trials for military personnel. The exemption was clear, focused and narrow. I’m not a lawyer, to state the obvious, but as a reasonably interested observer of matters military and legal, this seemed like a pretty easy decision to me.