Ex RAF Officer found guilty of sex offences committed at Gatow

[NutLoose]

See

BBC News - Ex-RAF officer guilty of sex abuse (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29559163)

Is it odd that he was court martialled? I would have thought a civilian court would have dealt with it, though it was at an overseas RAF base ( Gatow)

[Whenurhappy]

When posted abroad - and most certainly in Germany - almost all offences within the community are heard by Courts Martial (whereas in the UK, very serious allegations, such as rape and murder, are heard in civilian courts). This also applies to 'dependents' (a dreadful term) and UK civilians working for HM Forces in-country. Why? It is to ensure that UK personnel are subject to 'British' Justice. Imagine if an SP was accused of similar offences in, say, Saudi Arabia?*


* Probably acquitted, that's what!

[Pontius Navigator]

Status of Forces?

Evidence within military purview?

Remember wives were subject to Military law when domiciled with spouse overseas.

[Just This Once...]

Isn't a relatively recent thing that ex-serving, subject to attorney general approval, can now face a courts martial at any point in the future? I think it came in AFA06; prior to 2009 Service Law evaporated shortly after leaving.

[Whenurhappy]

Status of Forces?

Evidence within military purview?

Remember wives were subject to Military law when domiciled with spouse overseas.

Quite. The 13 abused boys were children of SP and thus similarly subject to the AFA, when he indecently assaulted them as their scoutmaster.

[NutLoose]

Thank you all of you for the concise explanations.

So even though no longer serving, one can still be subject to a court martial, I would imagine the detention of such a subject prior to the court date, if indeed he was detained on a military establishment would be interesting considering he is in effect a civilian.

I do hope the system has improved, because the system I served under a decent barrister would run circles around a court martial.

Interesting that Just This Once, was that backdated to service prior to It's introduction?



.

[Just This Once...]

Found the relevant extracts:

Time limit for charging person formerly subject to service law
This section applies where a person ceases to be subject to service law.
The person may not, after the end of six months beginning with the date he ceased to be subject to service law, be charged with a service offence committed while he was so subject.

But there is a magic bullet exception:

Sections 55 to 60: exceptions and interpretation

(2) Where any of sections 55 to 58 prohibits the charging of a person with an offence, the person may be charged with the offence if the Attorney General consents.

The AFA06 (enacted in 2009?) brought in sweeping powers. As I understand it if you have served, however briefly and however long ago, the Service can now come after you for any offence.

Incidentally being subject to Service Law is part of the X-factor calculation - perhaps we should now pay it to those who have left….

[NutLoose]

Damn, they might want my woolly blue gloves back :p

[Regie Mental]

Credit is due here to the RAF Police. Complaints to civ plod got nowhere but once the RAFP got hold of it they issued a plea for other victims to come forward and succeeded in gaining justice for 13 RAF kids who had been abused.

[NutLoose]

Yep, I just hope they can now put it behind them and move forward with their lives now he has been taken off the streets.

[Fitter2]

As reported the UK plod consulted Attorney General/DPP but were unable to press charges because the offences were committed outside UK; they passed all the evidence to the German police who similarly could not do anything because of the rules regarding UK service personnel at the time of the offences, so it went to RAF plod who under the relatively recent changes could press charges.


Sounds like the UK civil police did a good job in evidence gathering in the first place so that there was a case to answer. Similar hopes that the victims lives have not been permanently affected.

[4Greens]

Many moons ago in the Royal Navy, if you used a lawyer at a court martial you were obviously guilty !

[Pontius Navigator]

And if you didn't you were found guilty.

:)

Of course if your barrister got you off you paid a stiff penalty anyway. AFAIK, a rep and loss of seniority in the dark blue often dropped you back into the promotion bracket

[jindabyne]

This also applies to 'dependents' (a dreadful term)

Why so? After many years, my spouse is still dependent!

[Tankertrashnav]

I do hope the system has improved, because the system I served under a decent barrister would run circles around a court martial.

Chap I knew managed to inadvertantly shut down both engines in a Twin Pin which resulted in a very rapid immersion in the South China Sea. He was court martialled and employed a very smart lawyer who worked out a highly unlikely, but not impossible chain of events which could have caused the shutdown, and for which the pilot would not be to blame.

The verdict was not guilty, but the unspoken adjunct to the verdict was "we know you're guilty, you know you're guilty, so just count yourself lucky!"

Good chap and a great piss-up in the mess after he was discharged!

[Courtney Mil]

I do wonder about the power of a CM over someone that is no longer serving. How, for example, do they force someone to attend? Mil Pol with the power of arrest? Civvies? Technically they have police warrants, I guess. But isn't this a sucky area? What if he refuses to accept the authority of the Court?

[Just This Once...]

Since the change of law they really don't get a choice. You can be arrested, charged, tried and convicted as if you were still in.

[effortless]

Will he be treated as if he was still in regarding loss of pension etc.?

[Just This Once...]

Very few offences now trigger the withholding of pension (treason etc); that tradition has changed significantly.

[Fortissimo]

Courtney, as I understand it the military police don't have powers of arrest over civilians (even ex-military ones) unless they are under AFA jurisdiction overseas, and so they have to call for a proper copper to do the business. The Attorney General (presumably) having decided to prosecute under the AFA, Civpol can compel attendance at a properly constituted court, which under the new system the CMs are.

That said, the impending hefty prison sentence will be served in a mainstream jail rather than Colchester, which will hopefully be the least pleasant option given the sort of people to be found there!

[NutLoose]

Courtney, as I understand it the military police don't have powers of arrest over civilians (even ex-military ones)

So in that vein, if they have no power of arrest over you, surely they have no power to detain or question you?

[Courtney Mil]

Hmm. Good answers, thank you. Do keep them coming because I think this is an interesting issue.

[Wrathmonk]

Further to JTO link to the new clauses in the AFA2006, and regarding the question of who can make an arrest....

Section 68(4) (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/52/section/68)

Where a person may be charged (within the meaning of section 61(1)) with an offence only with the consent of the Attorney General (see section 61(2)), section 67(1) has effect in relation to the offence as if for the words from “in accordance with” to the end there were substituted “ by a service policeman ” (and as if section 67(2) to (5) were omitted).

For ease, the relevant sections are reproduced below:

Section 61(2) (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/52/section/61)

"Where any of sections 55 to 58 prohibits the charging of a person with an offence, the person may be charged with the offence if the Attorney General consents."]Where any of sections 55 to 58 prohibits the charging of a person with an offence, the person may be charged with the offence if the Attorney General consents.

The 'amended' Section 67(1) (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/52/section/67) would therefore read as

A person who is reasonably suspected of being engaged in committing, or of having committed, a service offence may be arrested by a service policeman.

So the way this non-legal bod reads into all that is if the Attorney General deems that a person can be charged with an offence under the Armed Forces Act (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/52/contents), regardless of how long it is since that person was subject to military law, they can be arrested by a military policeman. By using the word 'person' I would make the assumption that this also includes those who were subject to Air Force Law (as was) due to their location and not the fact that they wore uniform (dependants, civilian staff etc).

[Roadster280]

I'd agree with that Wrathmonk. One did not have to serve in the RAF to be charged under the Air Force Act. As a soldier on an RAF stn, but tapping the boards in front of my Army OC (of our Army squadron), I was most surprised to hear the 252 had "Air Force Act" on it.

[Just This Once...]

Given the recent successful prosecution it does seem slightly inappropriate to debate the darker side of this, but the sweeping powers gained by the RAFP (and equivalents) has not been without pain. I joined an RAF where the RAFP pretty much turned into civilians when they went off camp, to the point of covering the police markings and blue lights on their vehicles. Much has changed and the interpretation of the new acts by the RAFP and the oversight (or lack of) is as important as the exact words of the act.

RAFP can use both regular and Service Law when pursuing a case. As Service Law regards what would be relatively trivial issues in civilian law as arrestable offences they have, in effect, become one of the most powerful police organisations out there.

As relatively trivial issues can trigger an arrest and that an arrest can lead to custody without interview and that in turn can lead to searches without a warrant we now, uniquely, have civilian owned houses occupied by civilian spouses being routinely turned over by RAFP investigating trivial issues. There is no judicial oversight of this process and the authorising level can be a flt lt directly out of police school. There is also no independent complaints body to even hold the RAFP to account. In effect by a combination of civilian and military powers they can now carry out acts that would not have been dreamt of just 10 years ago.

I am aware of a number of horrendous acts carried out against service families on private property on matters that could not be pursued by civilian law or civilian police. The civilians involved in these events appear to have less rights than spouses or partners of regular civilians.

We have lost a lot of liberty in the last few years; unfortunately this extends to our families too.

[Wrathmonk]

JTO

Like CivPol, all Military Police (including "MOD Plod") are subject to restrictions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I'm sure a specialist will be along soon and highlight what is required under PACE to arrest / detain / search etc.

I'm fairly certain they only have powers of arrest over individuals subject to the AFA (plus those no longer subject to it but whose arrest is authorised by the AG as highlghted above) and, even on MOD property (i.e trespass) can only detain "non-AFA persons" until CivPol arrive and take over.

Any journo's reading this thread will (hopefully) love your comments about

custody without interview and that in turn can lead to searches without a warrant ..... civilian owned houses occupied by civilian spouses being routinely turned over by RAFP investigating trivial issues;)

[Bigt]

I have been following this case for a while, as I served at Gatow and knew Graham as a `distant` work colleague. The reporting of the case has been fairly accurate but lacks some detail. As far as I know Graham attained the rank of Sgt and spent most of his RAF career working at various GCHQ outstations. The courts martial board was made up of 7 civilians employed by the MOD instead of the more usual serving officers. It may well be that case will develop as their is now an ongoing investigation into his activities after leaving the RAF

[Just This Once...]

JTO

Like CivPol, all Military Police (including "MOD Plod") are subject to restrictions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I'm sure a specialist will be along soon and highlight what is required under PACE to arrest / detain / search etc.


Sorry, I did not mean to suggest that Mil Pol were not subject to PACE. The difference is that Mil Pol via Service Law has a very low bar as to what counts as an arrestable offence. Civilian police have exactly the same powers regarding custody and powers of search, but these only come in to play one they have good grounds to believe that an arrestable offence may have been committed. The seniority of those empowered to authorise a search without warrant is also a lot higher and all decisions can be scrutinised by the IPCC or a court.

In sum, the RAFP have the same powers under PACE but can use these in a manner never anticipated by the original law that governs civilian police.

[NutLoose]

The courts martial board was made up of 7 civilians employed by the MOD instead of the more usual serving officers.

I wonder how that works re military law etc, that and if any evidence in any case given is classified, I wonder if the "civilians" were ex service personnel, as that would get round that.

Just This Once, if correct those powers are disgusting, they should have to follow the law as per Civilian police when dealing with civilians at the very least.

[Wrathmonk]

NutLoose

Have a look here (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-justice-system/jurisdictions/military-jurisdiction/). I suspect the media (?) reporting the

courts martial board was made up of 7 civilians employed by the MOD

may be a bit scurrilous. According to the link there are 19 judges (if I've done my sums right!), all of which are civilians (although some, like the JAG, may be ex-mil). It may be that the 7 civilians on this CM were all judges....? Perhaps Bigt has more detail?

JTO

Thanks - and I agree that what constitutes a 'military offence' versus a 'civilian offence' is vastly different. After all the "bringing the Service into disrepute" pretty much covers anything and everything ;). On the level of authority required from the same link (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-justice-system/jurisdictions/military-jurisdiction/) ....

F. Custody, Search Warrants and Arrest Warrants

If a serviceman or woman is to be detained in custody, or if private premises need to be searched in the course of investigations, or if a person needs to be arrested, the authority of a Judge Advocate is required. The JAG or one of the judges must be satisfied that the continued detention, or the search or arrest, is legally justified. Such cases are often heard by video link and a judge is on duty every day of the year to rule upon urgent applications if required.

[Just This Once...]

Thanks Wrathmonk and if it worked like that in practice then we would have oversight. If the police arrest first they gain additional powers to 'search without warrant'. Handily this avoids any requirement to see a judge or have any judicial oversight of what happens.

As I understand it the civilian police have to use search warrants more often as they usually do not have the evidence to proceed direct to arrest. As the grounds for arrest is so low in Service Law and is not subject to external scrutiny the RAFP can effectively bypass the judicial process by proceeding direct to arrest and then start the searches.

[Tankertrashnav]

As far as I know Graham attained the rank of Sgt...

If that's the case then this is yet another case where the media cannot distinguish between an NCO and an officer. I suppose it's too much to expect the BBC to employ anyone with even the vaguest knowledge of service rank structures - even their so-called defence correspondents display dismal ignorance of their supposed specialism.

Mind you, on a visit to RAF St Mawgan the other night I dined in the combined officers/sergeants mess, and the Station Duty "Officer" who I saw saluting the ensign as it was lowered at 1800 was a chief tech, so perhaps I shouldn't blame them too much!

[izod tester]

NCO - Non Commissioned Officer.

[TEEEJ]

Bigt wrote

As far as I know Graham attained the rank of Sgt

I remember him as a Chief Tech.

The Times snippet refers to him as a Chief Technician.

RAF officer abused children on base | The Times (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/defence/article4232439.ece)

[Tankertrashnav]

izod - funnily enough I do know what NCO stands for! Nevertheless in common parlance the term officer applies exclusively to commissioned officers. Warrant officers and non commissioned officers are always so designated.

[NutLoose]

TTN

It's the press, they see the words commissioned officer in NCO and it's blinkers on.... One would hate to think what they would make of a TAG of old, no doubt a Brigadier at the least.

[Al R]

Didn't the BBC coverage suggest he was 'intelligence' - non CT trade route anyway?

[The Oberon]

Al R


Analysts followed the technical rank structure, they even wore sparks badges, I don't know about other Int. types.

[Bigt]

Graham was either a Communications Systems Analyst (CSA) or a Communications Systems Analyst - Voice (CSA (V)......these were the new names for the trades of ROT - Radio Op Tel and ROV - Radio Op Voice. The titles changed in the late 1980s.....the trades were a `sub division of Trade Group 11 (siggies/comms.
As suggested earlier he may well of moved on to the dizzy heights of CT...

[izod tester]

TTN

I agree that within the military community the word "officer" is generally understood to be a commissioned officer. However, whether we like it or not, the media do not feel themselves to be constrained to take the same interpretation. They will generally write articles to have the greatest impact on their perceived audience and they often have little appreciation of the difference between commissioned, noncommissioned or warrant officers.

In any case, part of our military training and experience was the importance of giving unambiguous descriptions or instructions. If said description or instruction is capable of more than one interpretation then you should not be surprised if someone takes a different understanding to that which you intended.

[Bill4a]

As a retired Boggy could I be permitted to point out that a Sergeant is an officer of the non commissioned variety.
It looks like somebody is trying to put the services in a bad light, who next, the Navy?

[TEEEJ]

Graham was a Linguist (ROV later CSA(V)). Same trade as spy Geoffrey Prime who also sexually abused children.

Geoffrey Prime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Prime)

RAF Linguist board.

Eddie Graham (http://rafling.darkbb.com/t73-eddie-graham)

Free forum : Gatow Old Boys (http://rafling.darkbb.com/)

[Al R]

The Telegraph not only was clueless, but it also couldn't make its mind up. It described Sgt Stephen Brunell as 'an officer' and then 'a senior officer'.

Injured RAF officer served for a year thinking broken neck was pulled muscle - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/8109934/Injured-RAF-officer-served-for-a-year-thinking-broken-neck-was-pulled-muscle.html)

[goudie]

To be fair it does eventually describe him as a senior non-commissioned officer
These days even police constables are addressed as 'officer'

[Whenurhappy]

Vetting worked, didn't it?

[Pontius Navigator]

WUH, I know you know but for others

Vetting, if valid, is valid only for the day it is granted.

Remember too that the confessional was absolute; tell the confessor and you were fire proof until otherwise outed as certain senior officers discovered.

I was once called as a referee as the subject had not provided satisfactory ones.

The subject had one aim which was to spend every penny he earned to stop his ex getting anything in the divorce. Secondary wad bonking a nurse from PMRAFNS. Very simple, straight as a die, didn't drink and rather anti-social. In fact the ideal prospect. The plod could not get his head around that.

[Whenurhappy]

Remember too that the confessional was absolute; tell the confessor and you were fire proof until otherwise outed as certain senior officers discovered.

Not so now. Buried deep within NSV Vision and Mission statements and other supporting Corporate bumpf there something to the effect of:

'Yeah, I know you think this is confidential, but if I think that other people should know how depraved you are, assuredly they will be told'

[Old Bricks]

It has always been the case that there is no point in being a spy/traitor unless you are highly vetted, otherwise you don't have access to anything worth selling or giving away to the other side!

[Haraka]

...or conversely of such a low profile that nobody thinks you could possibly be a risk.





" Wot ?, "

"Our Doris the cleaning lady!!!!!"

[ValMORNA]

The deaf-and-dumb (sorry, politically incorrect) Chinese cleaning staff were obviously above suspicion at an RAF facility in Hong Kong, otherwise they would not have been permitted to enter sensitive areas. Yeah, right!

[Tankertrashnav]

We used to reckon that old Pop, the cleaner who did the squadron offices at Marham, a harmless seeming little old bloke, was probably a long standing mole and in reality a KGB major (with a convincing Norfolk accent) just keeping his eyes and ears open.

[nutnurse]

I gather as far as Clinton went, the ambiguity was the word 'sex'. A cigar is one thing, John Thomas is another.

[teeteringhead]

I gather as far as Clinton went, the ambiguity was the word 'sex'. A cigar is one thing, John Thomas is another. Moreover, as I understand they put it in the Southern States:

"Eatin' ain't cheatin'" ......... :E

[Pontius Navigator]

" Wot ?, "

"Our Doris the cleaning lady!!!!!"

She got a CBE after the war according to Nicholas Soames (and an MBE a the time she learnt it).

[TEEEJ]

BBC News - Ex-RAF officer Eddie Graham sentenced to 13 years for child abuse (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29991524)

[GreenKnight121]

While your point is true, your example is not.

The actual full statement, before being edited down for shortness by the media, was: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

He did specify who he was referring to.

[baffman]

The civilian composition of the CM board was mentioned earlier. Where the accused is a civilian but is not ex-Service, the board should be entirely civilian. Where the accused is ex-Service, the court may consist of either civilian lay members or Service lay members, or be a mixed board.

Someone else queried how such a board could have dealt with classified information. Regardless of the accused's former employment I don't see why this CM would have needed to hear classified information, but if that was ever an issue there should be no difficulty forming a board of adequately cleared defence civilians.