Lt. Gen Steven Whelan, right, and his lawyer, Phillip Millar arrive to court in Gatineau, Que., on Sept. 25.Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
Lieutenant-General Steven Whelan sent e-mails commenting on a subordinate’s anatomy and invited her to his hotel room, and she believes her refusal led him to retaliate at her performance evaluation, according to her testimony at his court martial.
The prosecution said it has e-mail evidence that substantiates some of the claims of the complainant, who testified for the first time on Wednesday. But whether they will be admitted into evidence is being hotly contested.
Defence lawyer Phillip Millar suggested the proposed evidence amounted to extortion and said the e-mails were like “the Sword of Damocles” hanging over Lt.-Gen. Whelan.
The military alleges that Lt.-Gen. Whelan made improper considerations in the scoring of the performance evaluation of the subordinate in June, 2011 and that he acted out of fear that she would disclose their interactions to headquarters.
Defence lawyer Phillip Millar has said his client was in a personal – but not physical – relationship with the complainant. Mr. Millar said Lt.-Gen. Whelan cut off the relationship before the two deployed. The lawyer argued that the accused is the victim of politics.
Top general asked senior officer to make subordinate presenting allegations about him ‘go away’
The three-star general is one of the most senior commanders to ever be brought before a court martial. The complainant was questioned by the prosecution on Wednesday but has not yet been cross-examined by the defence.
Lt.-Gen. Whelan was a lieutenant colonel when he first met the complainant in early 2010 and was later promoted to colonel during the time the alleged incidents took place. He was more than half a dozen ranks above her.
The complainant told the court they first met while he was planning to deploy as taskforce commander on a mission in Jerusalem, which she was tasked with liaising. She testified they quickly became friendly and he “hand-picked” her to deploy on the mission with him as a clerk despite being several ranks lower than the military said was required.
She said her possible deployment was poorly received by her existing chain of command and her workplace turned toxic. People questioned what a taskforce commander wanted with someone of such a low rank, and she said she was told that if she didn’t end up going on the mission, she couldn’t keep her current job.
In that time, the complainant told the court, Lt.-Gen. Whelan was both a confidant and “someone to lean on,” who had promised her protection and a bright career if she deployed on the mission. However, she said he also frequently overstepped and said “inappropriate comments” that were not initiated by her.
“There was communication that was completely inappropriate,” she said. ”Parts of my anatomy were addressed.”
The witness testified she would mostly ignore the comments but that if she raised concerns, he would “tone back” what she called his “word of the day.”
She testified that once she was on tour, Lt.-Gen. Whelan invited her to dinner and to a “private meeting in his hotel room.”
The complainant said his attitude changed after she rebuffed those offers: She was berated for misplacing a small sum of money, tasked with setting coffee each morning and left out of medals that most others got.
When she received her performance report later that year, the witness said she was shocked to see it was a “sub-par” score. The court has been told that report was written by now-retired colonel Ron Ubbens in co-ordination with Lt.-Gen. Whelan.
She testified she was told by Mr. Ubbens that Lt.-Gen. Whelan had lowered her score. She said she told Mr. Ubbens that she thought the general had acted “in retaliation.”
“I said something along the lines that ‘he didn’t get what he wanted, and this is how he’s making me pay, by affecting my career,’” she told Major Max Reede, the prosecutor.
She was ultimately given a higher score. On Monday, the court was shown e-mails showing that Lt.-Gen. Whelan asked Mr. Ubbens to make it his “mission to appease” her.
Mr. Ubbens told the court that those e-mails were sent while the two were deciding on her performance score and after he had told the general about the complainant’s concerns.
Whether the court sees the other e-mails is expected to be decided Thursday by Commander Martin Pelletier, the military judge. If he deems the e-mail evidence inadmissible, then Major Reede will have already presented all of his evidence.
The prosecutor argued in court Wednesday that the e-mails were needed to illustrate motive and show the complainant is credible – an effort to counter defence accusations that she is lying.
Cmdr. Pelletier was resistant to even having an admissibility hearing on that evidence but ultimately acquiesced to one, called a voir dire. He repeatedly raised concerns on Wednesday that the prosecution was trying to repurpose evidence from a charge related to sexual misconduct that the prosecution dropped on Monday.
“It seems to me that you’re trying to bring the sexual misconduct back through the backdoor, knowing that these e-mails will become public,” Cmdr. Pelletier said.
Mr. Millar has staunchly argued against the new e-mail evidence, saying they are irrelevant to the case and would “highly prejudicial and embarrassing” for Lt.-Gen. Whelan.
“There’s almost a suggestion that if the accused pleads guilty to count one, the e-mails don’t get out,” Mr. Millar said.
He requested a publication ban on the voir dire until the end of the trial so that the e-mails can’t be reported on while the judge rules on admissibility. The prosecution opposed the request and suggested granting a publication ban in this case would show more leniency than courts marital have granted to other accused people of lower ranks.
The Globe and Mail also made arguments against a publication ban. Lawyer Andrew MacDonald cited recent Supreme Court decisions that establish that potential embarrassment is not enough to override the open court principle.
With reports from The Canadian Press.