Canadian man found intoxicated outside NATO military headquarters jailed

The Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE), home to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's military command in Casteau, Belgium. (Shutterstock)

A Canadian man found drunk in a car outside NATO’s military headquarters in Belgium has been sentenced to 30 days in jail by a Canadian military court — despite not being a member of the Canadian Armed Forces and not committing any offence under Belgian law.

Before his conviction by court martial last year, 63-year-old Doug Allison sought to have the impairment charge dismissed, arguing that Canada’s military justice system had no jurisdiction over him as a civilian living in Belgium.

When the trial eventually went ahead, the court heard that Allison was discovered asleep behind the wheel of a car parked outside a bar on the sprawling grounds of NATO’s Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) in December 2022.

The international military police officer who found him testified that Allison was slumped in the driver’s seat with his door open and “a strong odour of alcohol coming from him,” according to court records.

‘Clear signs’ of intoxication

Allison, whose wife was then serving at the NATO headquarters as a public affairs officer, denied being drunk and told the officer that he needed to go home immediately, according to the documents.

“The offender then attempted to insert his car key in the ignition to set the vehicle in motion,” Judge Capt. Catherine Deschênes wrote in her sentencing decision, detailing how the officer confiscated Allison’s keys then called for backup.

Two other officers who attended the scene testified that Allison showed “clear signs of severe alcohol-induced intoxication,” according to the court documents. Those officers said Allison displayed “limited motor skills, slurred or strange speech, difficulties standing up by himself, amongst other symptoms.”

Allison, who served in the Canadian Forces but retired before moving to Belgium earlier that year, was driven home from the NATO complex by military police. The following month, Belgian authorities sent a memorandum to Canada’s senior military representative in the country advising his office of the incident.

“Because the allegations do not constitute an offence under Belgian law, no charges would be laid against the applicant by the local authorities,” the Belgians told Canadian officials, according to the judge.

A short time later, Canada’s judge advocate general, who oversees the country’s military justice system, wrote back asking Belgium to support the Canadian Armed Forces in pursuing a criminal charge in the case.

According to the judge, the Belgian authorities confirmed they “would not interfere with the exercise of Canadian jurisdiction,” clearing the way for Canadian military prosecutors to charge Allison with one count of operating a conveyance while impaired.

Military jurisdiction over dependants

With a court martial hearing set to proceed, Allison filed an application to terminate the case, arguing the military court had no jurisdiction over him as a civilian.

In response, the military’s director of prosecutions said the charge would only be withdrawn only if Allison agreed to return to Canada, surrender his passport, and face prosecution in a civilian court instead.

Allison answered that he would only return to Canada after a civilian court agreed to prosecute the case, putting the onus on the civilian justice system make the first move.

The judge accused Allison of playing a game of “catch me if you can,” saying the civilian justice system did not have the authority or rationale to charge him first, especially when “his province of origin remains unknown, information that the applicant was not willing to share.”

“The civilian Crown cannot exercise jurisdiction over Mr. Allison while he remains abroad and his province of residence is unknown,” Deschênes wrote. “The military justice system consequently has jurisdiction to ensure that in situations such as this, Canada retains jurisdiction so dependants remain subject to some laws at all times.”

Impaired driving history

The court martial proceeded. Allison testified that he had served in the Canadian Armed Forces for 39 years, retiring in early 2022.

The court heard that Allison had a history of impaired driving-related convictions.

“He committed his first impaired driving-related offence in 1989 when he was 28 years old,” the judge summarized. “He was fined $450 after a contested trial. In 1993, he was convicted of two more related offences and received a $300 fine, three months’ probation, and a one-year driving prohibition. In 2004, he pled guilty to failing or refusing to provide a breath sample and received a $1,000 fine and a 12-month driving prohibition.”

Allison testified that on the day he was found asleep in his vehicle at the NATO headquarters, he had been feeling physically and mentally exhausted. He had spent the day and evening at the bar drinking alcohol and participating in a darts tournament before his encounter with the police.

At least one off-duty military police officer saw him drinking at the bar that day, corroborating the prosecution’s evidence of extreme intoxication, according to the court documents.

‘A danger to society’

Allison was found guilty at the conclusion of the court martial in Germany, where the military prosecutor sought a 30-day jail term, followed by a three-year driving ban.

“The offender’s testimony demonstrated further that Mr. Allison is still a danger to society, as he still poses a risk to operate or drive a vehicle while impaired because he only took limited steps to address his alcohol abuse,” the judge wrote.

“The prosecution also submitted that the offender only disavowed his struggle with alcohol after being charged. His own resolve is an unreliable safety net considering his past, therefore he should be seen as a continued risk to society, a serial offender.”

Allison’s defence lawyer argued for a $3,000 fine instead, saying the offender had served his country for 39 years and had pledged to quit drinking since the incident.

A military impact statement signed by the commanding officer for the NATO headquarters region was submitted by the prosecution. In it, Lt.-Col. Suzie Chateauneuf expressed worry after “hearing skeptic comments from members of the Canadian community regarding the outcome of these trial proceedings, and whether they would even take place,” the judge noted.

Chateauneuf said the decision to finally try the case in Europe had sent “a wave through” the community of military members and their families deployed overseas, which she hoped would “certainly help with deterrence in the future.”

‘Exceptional’ case for military court

Deschênes cited several aggravating factors in the case, including that Allison was “extremely intoxicated” and therefore posed a high risk to the community. She also highlighted his three prior impaired driving-related convictions, and the fact that he “attempted to set the vehicle in motion” when initially approached by police.

“It is rare that a court martial has to impose a punishment for an offender found guilty of an offence related to driving or operating a vehicle while impaired,” the judge wrote.

“Even more exceptional is a court martial held to try a civilian accused. In modern day, I am aware of only one other case,” she concluded, making reference to a 2012 case in which a civilian educator was accused of assaulting a service member in Germany.

The judge sided with the prosecution’s request for a one-month jail sentence but concluded the military court lacked the authority to impose driving prohibitions — or any penalties beyond fines and imprisonment — on civilian offenders.

Appeal dismissed

Allison ultimately appealed his conviction on the grounds that civilians should only face a military court in “very exceptional circumstances” and only when “absolutely essential.”

The three-judge panel of the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada ruled on Nov. 6 that Allison’s argument was a flawed attempt to rewrite the provisions of the National Defence Act, which states that civilian dependants of deployed CAF members are subject to the same military code of service discipline (CSD) as regular soldiers.

“In substance, Mr. Allison attacks the discretion exercised by the prosecutorial authorities to charge and prosecute him in the military justice system,” Chief Justice Mary Gleason wrote on behalf of the panel. “Needless to say, there is nothing in the facts of this case that would give rise to the setting aside of the decision to charge and prosecute.”

The appeal court ordered Allison to surrender to Canadian authorities within seven days to begin serving his jail sentence at a correctional facility near Ottawa.

Deputy director of military prosecutions Lt.-Col. Karl Lacharité says prosecuting a civilian in a military court is a rare occurrence, and each case is assessed on its merits individually with the public interest in mind.

“Even when a civilian is subject to the CSD, prosecution in the military justice system is not automatic,” Lacharité said in an emailed statement.

“The exercise of jurisdiction over civilians in the military justice system occurs when there are clear and principled reasons to do,” he added.

“In cases occurring outside Canada, those reasons can include situations where the conduct is an offence under Canadian law but not an offence locally, where local authorities cannot proceed, and where the discipline, efficiency and morale of the CAF are implicated.”