Thank you. Perhaps I can start answering the question, and then my colleague, Colonel Wry, could provide other information.
On the use of paragraph 98(c) twice since 2000, it's always very difficult in any justice system to explain why a particular section is used or not used. For example, in the military justice system we know that approximately 70% of the charges being laid all pertain to the same type of category. They are there to address circumstances that prevail at the time at which they are used. Perhaps—and this is only speculative—paragraph 98(c) has acted as a dissuasive to those who specifically intended to injure themselves to escape service, dissuading them from doing it because they knew that the offence was on the books. I don't know that; I'm just offering that as a possibility.
The other thing I can point to is that before paragraph 98(c) is used, like most offences, there will be a whole-of-command approach to advising those who would lay the charges and would dispose of the charges. The commanding officer would be consulting with his medical officer in such circumstances. Is the person identified as someone who is not apt to stand trial or is suffering from a mental injury?
They will also receive legal advice from their legal adviser. Is it appropriate or not to charge under this specific section of the National Defence Act? This is something that the charge layer would have to be advised of and there would be consultation. Advice would be provided to the charge layer to ensure that there's not inappropriate use of the charge.
Perhaps my colleague could provide further information.