R v. Kipling
Canada Court Martial Appeal Court
CMAC-437, 2002 CMAC 1 (2002)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Canadian Sergeant Michael Kipling (defendant) was deployed to the Middle East. The Canadian military authorities believed that Kipling’s detachment might face weaponized anthrax during the unit’s military duties. Kipling’s commander ordered everyone in the detachment to receive an anthrax vaccine. The vaccine had been used in the United States for 28 years. However, there were reports that the vaccine might be unsafe. Kipling refused to be vaccinated. Kipling was sent back to Canada and tried for the crime of disobedience. Kipling’s attorney argued that forcing servicemembers to be vaccinated without their consent violated the servicemembers’ constitutional rights to life, liberty, and security of the person. The military judge did not hold a hearing to determine whether the vaccine was dangerous. However, the military judge found that because the vaccine might be dangerous, forcing Kipling to be vaccinated without his consent violated his constitutional right to security of the person. The Crown (plaintiff) appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Strayer, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.