The previous poster suggested that the RAF has been disingenuous with regard to RAF Law. The problem is of course, that the RAF along with the Army and Navy do ensure that disciplinary matters are dealt with fairly, consistently and quickly.
Now here’s the but. The system of dispensing summary justice at Subordinate Command, Unit, DCM or GCM levels works well when dealing with purely military matters. Absence Without Leave, Negligent Discharges, Loss of ID Card are a few examples. However the system fails with regular monotony when Military Law under the 1955 Acts attempts to deal with Civil Matters. Civil charges under the 1955 Act are extremely difficult to formulate. Once formulated by the relevant services Legal Branch they are then prosecuted by the same Branch with perhaps greater determination (as, I would suggest, has been demonstrated here) than would necessarily occur in a civil court. Besides, a civil court at equivalent level would have a jury whose next promotion or posting would not necessarily be influenced by the outcome.
Further, and this is peculiar to the Services, for a Civil charge under the Acts, I am sure (although could be wrong given my direct knowledge of military law is 20 years out of date) that a Board of Inquiry must have completed it’s business and delivered it’s findings. I mean how can these charges have been framed without their findings and what is the Board of Inquiry going to find when the CM has delivered it’s verdict?
In conclusion, the system does generally work well with the limitations of simple and straightforward military law and discipline. The system in this case has failed and I would even venture to suggest that it has been an abuse.
This Officer is, I am quite sure, have read the entire thread and the CM updates, NOT guilty. He has been treated shamelessly.