Armed Forces Bill - Big Changes for RAF

[Scud-U-Like]

I was having a browse through the new Armed Forces Bill. Apart from the well publicised changes to the armed forces criminal justice system, it appears there will be quite a few other significant changes affecting the RAF, including:

New offences of 'Low Flying' and 'Annoyance by Flying'.

The incorporation of Air Navigation Order offences into service law.

Provision for testing for alcohol and drugs after a serious incident.

A statutory duty will be placed on commanding officers to make the service police aware of the possibility of a serious offence having been committed.

The service police will have the power to arrest any officer, regardless of rank, for a service offence.

Read the Armed Forces Bill here (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/094/06094.i-v.html)

[LFFC]

Watch out everyone - looks like we all have to follow the civilian Air Navigation Order now! I'm sure we all do so already - in peacetime. But what latitude do we have to operate as we wish during operations now? Best we finally include civilian Air Law in our training now!

Maybe we might finally get that CAA dispensation too!

[CBA_caption]

Two years porridge for busting your MSD and if the boss is in the boot he's forced to shop you!

Must be a plan to remove the LFAs through the back door:E

CBA

Edited to add: If we become subject to ANO are we then limited to 500 clear of everything? BEagle?

Don't joke Chevvron, probably only a matter of time before the large green fields surrounding our strips of concrete are viewed with envious eyes!

[chevvron]

Sorry you can't have LFA's any more in case it annoys an illegal traveller camp.

[LFFC]

I guess it will now be a brave commander that issues any orders or instructions that violate the Air Navigation Order.

Remind me; what does the ANO say about minimum height for low flying?

I wonder if this has been fully thought through? I certainly hope that caveats have been written into this new Act which aren't immediately apparent!

[southside]

I fail to see what the fuss is. There has always been an offence in the Naval Discipline Act giving 2 years prison for dangerous or unauthorised low flying so nothing new there. The good thing with the new bill is that the death penalty has been removed (at last).

[Scud-U-Like]

southside

The proposed new offences relating to low flying and causing annoyance, provide that they may be committed intentionally, recklessly or negligently, whereas the current offences require intention or recklessness, which are generally more difficult to prove.

Incidentally, the death penalty as a possible punishment for military offences was removed 7 years ago, by the Human Rights Act.

[Beagle-eye]

LFFC

> Remind me; what does the ANO say about minimum height for low flying?

500' above ground, obstacle or person. If flying over built up areas must have sufficient hight to glide clear in the event of engine failure.

[FJJP]

Beagle-eye?

Piggy-backing on BEagle's fine name and reputation? Not terribly clever...


[Edited to correct spelling...]

[diginagain]

Where is The Great One, BTW? Awful quiet round here without.

[Brain Potter]

What about the ANO mandated speed limit of 250 kts below FL100 in Class G?

[BEagle]

If I recall correctly, there is a general ANO provision that military aircraft are to be operated in accordance with whatever JSP318 is called these days rather than in accordance with the ANO. Check the FPD for clarification of the 250 below 10 exemption in UK airspace.

The Rule 5 500ft rule refers to 'people, vehicles, vessels and structures' rather than a 500ft MSD. So you can legally go down to 1 molecule MSD in a civil a/c so long as there aren't any people, vehicles, vessels or structures within 500ft.

Have been away for a couple of weeks checking car parks, hence the absence from PPRuNe.

[Brain Potter]

I thought that Military aircraft were not subject to the ANO but rather legislation cascaded down from Air Force Law through JSPs to CGOs. Hence no need for Licences etc. Just querying what parts of the ANO that we are now going to be subject to?

[tonkatechie]

The service police will have the power to arrest any officer, regardless of rank, for a service offence.
Erm, sorry if I'm being dim, but I thought that they always could? Surely no-one is above the law?:confused: :sad:

[FJJP]

IIRC a non-commissioned military policeman could only arrest an officer on the specific orders of a provost officer, unless the officer was actively involved in an affray....

[southside]

Has an Officer ever been arrested?

Racking the grey cells to remember an RN Officer who may have been arrested but can't think of any. I know one or two who have ended up in the dwang big time but don't think they were arrested.




Anyway, getting back to the thread....Can anyone actually determine if we are subject to the ANO or not?

[Champagne Anyone?]

FJJP...

The Snowdrops can and always have been able to arrest anyone, regardless of rank, who was committing an arrestable offence or where an arrestable offence had been committed if they suspected the said officer, SNCO, airman and civilians of committing the offence they could arrest that person without a warrant. Basic common law. Statute law, common law and case law forms the main part of military law from which the snowdrops obtain their powers from. Air Force Act '55 etc.

Local procedure might have been that the chief Snowie wanted to be informed before such an event but this is not infact needed to give the LAC/A/CPL Plod and ranks above, the power to arrest Air Com Thug, F/L Bruiser or W/O Thrasher from beating his wife up, deliberately damaging his neighbours car, or nicking the silver from the Mess etc. etc.etc. (and a whole host of other arrestable offences too) The powers are rank free.

[Twonston Pickle]

Not quite true, probably best to check the source doc first maybe?

MAFL clearly states:

5. The following persons may place an officer in arrest:


(a) an officer of the Royal Air Force of superior rank;


(b) an officer of the Royal Air Force of any rank, when the officer to be placed in arrest is engaged in a quarrel or disorder.


(c) a provost officer, or any officer, warrant officer, non-commissioned officer or rating legally exercising authority under a provost officer or on his behalf,
provided that if the arrest is to be effected by a warrant officer, non-commissioned officer or rating, such arrest must be under the orders of an officer, and the
order to arrest should preferably be in writing;


So, as you can see, permission is required before an NCO Copper arrests an officer (at present).

[Scud-U-Like]

Actually, you're both right.

There is nothing to prevent a service policeman from using the general power to arrest anyone (including an officer) who has committed or is suspected of being in the act of committing an arrestable offence, which s.24(4) & (5) Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) confers on anyone. An arrest for breach of the peace may also be made by any person on anyone.

Outside the UK, however, PACE and 'breach of the peace' powers of arrest do not apply and a service policeman has to rely entirely on his Air Force Act powers of arrest (which currently restrict the arrest of officers).

The advantage of using powers under the AFA (and the new Armed Forces Act, when it becomes law) is that it has the effect of giving the service policeman the very wide powers of arrest over those subject to service law, that a constable has over civilians.

In practice, the change will simply prevent a service policeman having to trawl around for a provost officer, before he can arrest an officer. The new power will be particularly useful where an immediate arrest is necessary, but consulting a provost officer may be impracticable. The increased overseas deployment of the armed forces would appear to make this change necessary.

[Champagne Anyone?]

Again correct and at the same time incorrect.

The whole of the RAF Police work from the powers that the Provost Marshall, an Air Commodore, provides them with under their Warrant of office. They also have all of the UK laws available to them as well (Common Law, Statute Law and Case Law) but only whilst in the UK or when abroad on a UK base which becomes UK sovereign territory.) There are also SAI's which form part of their powers whilst operating abroad as well.

They obtain the permission in writing you relate to, on their warrant card, issued when they pass out after their initial police training course. So no chasing round in the small hours looking for a Provost officer.

Whilst SDO in my time in the RAF I had more than a few fellow officers arrested by the Plod. The main difference is they didn't spend time in the MGR unless they were of a violent demeanour.

A Provost officer would be called out but only to oversee proceedings to ensure impartiality remained.


My brother in law, who works within the RAF legal system, has had a chortle at some of the answers on here... Keep on trying guys!!

[southside]

Its all very well having rules n Regs....BUT, has an Officer ever been arrested? (had to giggle at the "when the officer to be placed in arrest is engaged in a quarrel " bit...tee hee)

[Scud-U-Like]

Southside

Yes, many officers have been arrested by the service police. It just isn't well publicised.

Champers

As you might imagine, I have to disagree with you.

Service personnel serving overseas are only subject to UK criminal laws by virtue of the fact such laws are incorporated into the service discipline acts (eg AFA 1955). It is from the service discipline acts that service policemen abroad derive their powers of arrest.

The wording on warrant cards makes no mention regarding powers of arrest. The warrant card explanation you cite is legally dubious and has never been challenged in the courts. If it were so conclusive, why would the sponsors of the new Armed Forces Bill (who would have consulted, amongst others, service lawyers) have gone to the trouble of re-wording the arrest provisions, in order to give service policemen a power they already possess?

You may well have seen arrested officers, but how do you know they were not arrested under the ordinary criminal law or that the arresting policeman had not spoken to a provost officer beforehand? There is no requirement to 'call out' a provost officer in order to obtain his order to arrest. A telephone call would suffice.

[southside]

No they havent. In a service a small as this we hear of every Officer involved in a CM or SP. Certainly, over the past 5 years I could count on one hand the amount of Officers involved in C's M and doubt if they were arrested.

[Scud-U-Like]

Assuming you are aware of every CM and SP in the armed forces, I think you are assuming every arrest results in a summary proceeding or trial. It doesn't.

[southside]

NO but does every CM or ST stem from an arrest?

Every C's M is publicised and open to the public with the result being made available to those who are interested. So does every trial stem from an Arrest?

[tonkatechie]

Service personnel serving overseas are only subject to UK criminal laws by virtue of the fact such laws are incorporated into the service discipline acts (eg AFA 1955).
Or because we are bound by UK Civil law (which has primacy?) when representing HM Government overseas. Just to add to the confusion, what about those situations where personnel are serving in places where the local law is stricter than the UK law (e.g. blood alcohol limits for driving in Germany). How would this affect the situation? In order to keep in with the thread, does this sort of thing apply to your flying regs, and what happens if you 'accidentally' break them?

[Biggles Flies Undone]

I may be entirely wrong (quite often am) but I wonder if the armed forces are being further lined up for the 'blame culture'.

In my industry the Financial Services Act was introduced - it was claimed - to protect the consumer. As far as I can see, however, its main purpose is to create a paper trail so that, if things go TU, they can always find someone to blame instead of sorting the problem.

I was fortunate enough to visit Larkhill a couple of years ago and all I could see were Health and Safety notices everywhere. Is this now the thin end of the wedge for the RAF? Do hope I'm wrong :(

[Scud-U-Like]

Southside

I think you're tying yourself in knots.

You asked, "Has an Officer ever been arrested?"

I replied, "Yes, many officers have been arrested"

You didn't qualify 'ever', so I didn't qualify 'many'.

Happy?

tonkatechie

You cannot commit an offence contrary to UK criminal law, outside the UK, unless an offence has extra-territorial provisions. In other words, the offence makes it a crime for a UK citizen to do some act overseas. Such offences are few, but include genocide, torture and some sexual offences relating to children overseas.

Save for these exceptions, a British citizen (including a member of the armed forces) who is outside the UK, cannot commit a criminal offence contrary to the criminal laws of the UK. There is no 'primacy'. The law does not apply. Simple as that.

All members of the armed forces are, however, subject to the service discipline acts and it is into these acts that most English (though not Scottish or NI) criminal offences are incorporated.

Section 70 of the Air Force Act (the other two services have similar provisions) makes it an air-force offence to commit any civil offence. 'Civil offence' means any act or omission punishable by the law of England, or which, if committed in England, would be punishable under that law.

While serving overseas, you are bound by the criminal laws of the country you are visiting, unless the law of that country, your country or international law, provides otherwise (eg under visiting forces laws). The relative strictness of the laws of the country you are visiting and UK service law, is immaterial.

If, as the service pilot of a UK military aircraft, you breach a flying regulation and such a breach amounts to an offence, contrary to service law or the law of the country you are visiting (but see the above paragraph), you commit an offence.

[Blacksheep]

I was Orderly Sergeant when an RAF Police Corporal brought in a drunken officer who he had discovered lying face down on the grass outside the WRAF block. Technically the said Flight Lieutenant was under arrest, though he was not inclined to challenge the Corporal's or my own authority to detain him. As per SOP for drunks, we installed him safely in a cell, minus belt, shoelaces etc. and informed the Orderly Officer, who then informed the Station Commander. As instructed by the CO, we kept the said drunken officer overnight in the guardroom and released him to the CO on his way in the following morning. I'd have loved to have been a fly on the wall of the CO's office during the subsequent "interview" but we never heard any more about it. 'High Spirits' one supposes, but I don't think it did anything to advance his career...