OTTAWA-
The Canadian soldier who recently led a protest march to Ottawa now faces a court martial for speaking out against the federal government’s COVID-19 vaccine requirements while wearing his uniform.
Warrant Officer James Topp was recently told he would be allowed to have his case heard by a military tribunal rather than his chain of command, according to the Army Reservist’s civilian lawyer.
Phillip Millar says the decision represents a second about-face after the military originally offered his client a court martial when he was indicted in February, only to rescind the offer and send his case to unit commanders in Top.
“It’s hard to know what they’re doing, because I don’t think they really know what they’re doing,” Millar said. “But now they say it’s a court-martial.”
The decision raises the stakes for Topp, military law experts say, because courts martial are authorized to impose harsher sentences on members of the Armed Forces than if they are tried by their chain of command in what one calls for a summary trial.
Yet it also means that he will be allowed to be represented by a lawyer at trial, which would not necessarily have been the case if he had been tried by his commanding officer, while his trial will receive much more public attention. .
“The stakes are obviously going to rise in a public relations context,” said retired Lt. Col. Rory Fowler, who is now a military law attorney in Kingston, Ont.
The Department of National Defense did not respond to questions about whether Topp’s case had progressed from court martial to summary trial and vice versa.
Topp was charged in February with two counts of conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline after the Army reservist appeared in uniform in two online videos criticizing vaccine requirements for military personnel and other federal employees.
Members of the Canadian Armed Forces are severely restricted in the comments they can make in uniform, particularly when it comes to criticizing government policies, largely to protect the military from any perception of politicization.
Topp, who is now about to be discharged from the military, then led a month-long march from Vancouver that ended in Ottawa last week and was supported by many of the same organizers as the This year’s “Freedom Convoy”.
Since then, he has become something of a symbol for Canadians who oppose vaccines, vaccination mandates and perceived government excesses. Some Tory MPs have also hitched their wagons to him, including leadership candidate Pierre Poilievre.
While Millar questioned the military’s back and forth with his client and said he planned to question how Topp’s charges were being handled, he nevertheless welcomed the latest decision to allow a court martial.
Indeed, Topp will now be allowed to have an attorney present at his trial, where Millar said he plans to call expert witnesses to question the necessity and effectiveness of the government’s vaccine requirement. army.
The requirement imposed by Chief of the Defense Staff General Wayne Eyre late last year remains in place even though a similar mandate for most other federal officials has now been suspended.
“It opens the door for us to call witnesses about the decision to charge him,” Millar said. “It opens the door for us to call in experts to find out whether or not there was science behind the warrant.”
While the move from a summary trial to a court-martial means Topp will benefit from an independent trial with legal representation, Fowler said it also means the Army reservist faces potentially stiffer sentences if convicted. found guilty.
In a summary trial, commanders are largely limited to issuing reprimands and fines. If found guilty by court martial, however, Topp faces being discharged from the military with disgrace and up to two years in prison.
Retired Colonel Michel Drapeau said that while there could be a number of reasons why the military chose to change the case from a summary trial to a court martial, he believed the latter was the appropriate venue to hear Topp’s case.
“It provides for a trial in open court with all the legal safeguards of the Charter,” Drapeau said in an email. “It also provides for the provision of free legal assistance to the member.”
This report from The Canadian Press was first published on July 5, 2022.