Civil persecution of Servicemen & women

[sharpend]

Great idea to improve recruitment! Just seen on the news that those who served in Iraq may be prosecuted. So if one obeys a duff order you might go to jail. If you disobey it, you may be Court Marshalled, then go to jail.

However, our enemies can do what they like and eventually be compensated.

ps sorry, the title was meant to say 'Prosecution', but perhaps I'll leave it as it is.

[ShotOne]

Valid point, sharpend. Of course it's always been the case that servicemen and women are subject to the rule of law. The big difference now is that there is close-up high-definition video of most engagements. Every use of force is now potentially open to forensic examination by some right-on team of lawyers perhaps twenty or thirty years down the line.

[barnstormer1968]

If there were actual war crimes to investigate then this has always been the case that British personnel are held to account. What has annoyed me over this story are the sound bite news stories I'm hearing today. One spokesman just said that there is NO evidence at the moment but it's likely that evidence exists. So it seems we are trying to find evidence at public expense to then be able to get service personnel in court. Didn't we learn that approach is corrupt with the Shiner cases?

How far back will these cases go? Almost all operations in WW1 and WW2 involved war crimes by today's standards.

[KiloB]

This appears to be another one of those quangos that NEEDS to show that there is a problem in order to justify its contain existence and funding. A very dangerous scenario. BBC et al will of course be cheerleading when ever possible.

Standards do have to be met, but who not just prosecute cases which come to light in the normal way.

KB

[Pontius Navigator]

BS, I would imagine cases could go back as far as a law change. As far as compensation goes there seems practically no limit - Japanese comfort women, Mau Mau etc.

Best advice today would seem to be keep any relevant ROE cards, green/yellow or whatever. I know we used to be issued with revised cards and destroy the old one, but any action taken should apply to the card extant at the time.

Where orders are Secret at least keep a copy of the reference dtg etc.

[Basil]

Just remember manufactured evidence at the Al-Sweady inquiry.
Are we going to trust the evidence presented by lawyers on behalf of an enemy?
In any case, the greatest war crime against your own people is losing.

[ImageGear]

This whole sordid business makes me very angry.

We are fighting enemies who operate freely and without any RoE while our people are shackled by poli's and lawyers to the extent that one must consult a "reference" card before deciding on an action.

With an ever increasing chance that even if the reference card is incorrect or the action is purely self-preservation, or with the passage of time, an enquiry into the circumstances of your action becomes highly likely, when will service to the crown become a risk too great to bear?

When applicants sign on the dotted line are they made familiar with all of the potential pitfalls of the job? I suspect not.

When enough manpower can no longer be raised to fight, I look forward to the conscription of lawyers and poli's to the front line.

Imagegear. :mad:

[outhouse]

Sordid being a less descriptive word than I would use, however I do agree with the comments above. With the wish now to view actions by our military just to bring about prosecutions and to justify a number of well paid and attended committees should be no surprise.
Get the military to fix problems that the politicians have created, then when the dust has settled sift through the operations reports and shaft a few veterans seems par for the course to me.
Seen the same thing after the Yemen junket, and some :ouch:other operations.
Glad I am not young and thinking of serving my country, as your country may not serve you very well after the event.

outhouse
:ouch:

[sharpend]

Already Sky News are stating that this will deter people from joining the Armed Forces, at a time when recruitment in places is very low. So if we have insufficient members, then who will drive the Green Goddesses (oops, forgot the Government sold them), fill sandbags for flooded areas, go to Africa to treat virus victims, protect the UK from terrorists (and the Government from protesters), take over from Police, Fire and medics when they strike, oh, and I nearly forgot... fight wars?

One can cancel Christmas for a soldier, but if there are none?

[Hangarshuffle]

Oh yes it is.At any one time there are many investigations going on against the Army (today in the papers I saw Northern Ireland 1971/2 (todays Belfast Telegraph page 1 online) and Iraq 2003+ (Guardian page 1 and Daily Telegraph page 1).
However a strange thing is happening=its always, always the lower social orders they are sticking it on at present - always the rough speaking fighters. No one above NCO rank ever seems to get clobbered (at the moment).
Its a big mistake for the future of recruitment, of course. I wouldn't recommend anyone to go within a million miles of a signing-up form in any service, (at any level actually), because of this new threat. Any intelligent kid will glance the papers, reason that one out and avoid the military as a bad career.
Also another reason why no-one should be allowed to join up anything below the age of 18. (And without having an independent advisor available to counter the MOD spin when anyone does go in to sign up might be another thing to bolt on).
And in a nutshell, I think a lot of power-people have a real disdain for the military and certainly don't mind putting the boot in.
And a final parting shot - this is just the start of it. They've picked on the dimmest people first (the poor bloody infantry) for a reason. Believe me it will go up the food chain eventually, because that's the way wars and the killing have gone, are going. In the future it will be the ROV controller, the drone operators, the Tornado crews button-pressers who will be dragged in to any number of spurious, obscure claims. Think not? Don't bet on it. Put it this way I don't see any number of politicians falling down the aisles to bring in any protective legislation to servicemen - show me where they are, someone?
This is modern Britain. Its entirely split, its totally divided and its utterly uncaring because that's the way we have made it.

[Toadstool]

HS

No one above NCO rank ever seems to get clobbered (at the moment).

You must have missed this:

Cleared Mendonca quits army | World news | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/jun/01/iraq.military)

I agree in the main though. We must be able to go to war with top cover so that, should we adhere to the LOAC and Geneva Principles etc, we should be free from frivolous claims.

[barnstormer1968]

Basil
What you say is so obvious that it's worrying that you even need to say it.
There is something just so so wring that UK citizens struggle to get any form of legal aid while the UK tax payer will be paying for our enemies to go to court and say whether our forces are fair. The bizarre thing is that ISIS spend hundreds of thousands of dollars promoting themselves online or rubbishing the West, but now the UK government will be paying out UK cash to help the ISIS pay-ops campaign.

Makes you wonder why officers and NCOs write up their daily activities and monitor their subordinates !

[smujsmith]

I reckon that the time I served gives me a right to a post on here. The fault doesn't lie with our military, this is a total, political stitch up. Particularly Iraq 2003, where the elephant in the room is the bloke who lied his way in there, and those that supported him (crikey, the current occupant of No10) ! I'm damn sure that British troops did no worse that US troops, but you won't see many Americans investigated like this. It seems that the current government is quite happy to see people who put their necks on the line, as ordered by them, being slaughtered on the altar of political correctness. Whee are the defence chiefs on all this ? Heads down, counting the mounting pension pots I suspect. Military covenant, grossly insulting praise for good men, whilst offering platitudes to those who support the terrorists. As others have already stated, I would think twice about joining if I was "of that age" nowadays.

On a different tack. Happy New year to fellow PPRUNERs. Keep those "Lums" reeking !!!

Smudge :ok:

[A and C]

In the past I have commented about the practices of the group of lawyers who call them selfs Public Interest Lawyers.

These posts disappeared as if by magic.

If you are a serviceman and you find yourself under attack by the left wing trendy lawyers I would advise you to get rid of your assets and then at least if you are penniless you can get the same leagal aid that the lawyers will be using to prosecute you.

[Biggus]

Sorry if this post doesn't go along with the "outrage bus" everyone seems to be jumping on, or tally with Hangarshuffles comment "...I don't see any number of politicians falling down the aisles to bring in any protective legislation to servicemen - show me where they are, someone? ....". But perhaps people should try reading this:


Defence secretary Michael Fallon: suspend the human rights act to protect our troops - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12070235/Defence-secretary-Michael-Fallon-suspend-the-human-rights-act-to-protect-our-troops.html)

Which was actually reported on 26th Dec, several days before this thread was even started! :=:=

[Chinny Crewman]

Biggus,
the problem is this was in the Tory manifesto but was dropped at the last Queen's speech as being too problematic. An article in the Torygraph gives no protection but makes good reading.

[Chinny Crewman]

This thread/story is a result of reports in the press about the Iraq Historic Allegations Team headed by a former civilian police detective appointed and reporting to the MoD. I would ask why the ministry had to do this? Warfare is horrible and people do things they shouldn't but why this now? During the Falklands there is ample first hand accounts of British soldiers executing Argentine PoWs but nothing was done.
Falklands - a just war popular with the public.
Iraq - .......

[Chinny Crewman]

And whilst I'm on my high horse a lot of servicemen nowadays only have themselves to blame.
If half the members of Sgt Blackman's troop hadn't had Go Pros that they didn't know how to switch off he would now be a free man whatever the rights and wrongs of his actions and if servicemen in Iraq didn't take pictures of prisoners or dead insurgents then it would be very difficult to substantiate allegations of abuse.

[Thelma Viaduct]

I reckon that the time I served gives me a right to a post on here. The fault doesn't lie with our military, this is a total, political stitch up. Particularly Iraq 2003, where the elephant in the room is the bloke who lied his way in there, and those that supported him (crikey, the current occupant of No10) ! I'm damn sure that British troops did no worse that US troops, but you won't see many Americans investigated like this. It seems that the current government is quite happy to see people who put their necks on the line, as ordered by them, being slaughtered on the altar of political correctness. Whee are the defence chiefs on all this ? Heads down, counting the mounting pension pots I suspect. Military covenant, grossly insulting praise for good men, whilst offering platitudes to those who support the terrorists. As others have already stated, I would think twice about joining if I was "of that age" nowadays.

On a different tack. Happy New year to fellow PPRUNERs. Keep those "Lums" reeking !!!

Smudge :ok:

As above ∆ + the 'great british public' aren't worth serving, they don't give a toss.

Baffles me how Prince Harry spends so much quality time with wounded soldiers that his own Grandma sent to fight an illegal war, pretty messed up when you think about it. No wonder his cheeks are so rosy, I'd be embarrassed too if i were him.

Happy New Year!!!

[mopardave]

Jorge Mendonca was surely the exception to the rule? Whilst no one would advocate flagrant abuse of prisoners, why are we so enthusiastic about hounding our servicemen and women who are expected to put their lives on the line. Maybe our ROE need looking at? It seems to me that whilst we robustly observe the ROE, the Americans bend them and the Russians probably don't have them. Maybe it's time for the VSO's to lobby the government and stand up for those who serve this treacherous and ungrateful nation of ours. You gents will know far better than I do, but come on, do the top brass ever go in to bat for those at the sharpend.....I doubt it! Glad my son left the mob......Australia has welcomed him with open arms, and now they're about to claim my daughter too! Still, the PI lawyers will do ok! We'll pay out sh*t loads in compensation and we'll line the pockets of these parasites on the basis of, in some cases, pretty flaky accusations and evidence!
Great Britain.......gimme a break!:ugh:

[Tankertrashnav]

This whole thing stinks of that other legal bandwagon started by the Rolf Harris trial, where any woman who had her bum patted in 1975 is determined to have her day in court. This demeans those who were raped or seriously assaulted. In the same way, My Lai type massacres quite rightly have to be dealt with, but trawling for complaints in Iraq is going to come up with some very dubious stuff, and as usual the only winners will be the lawyers.

[Whopity]

When I taught Air Force Law you always stressed that justice should be swift or it no longer relates to the offence.

[parabellum]

when will service to the crown become a risk too great to bear?

When applicants sign on the dotted line are they made familiar with all of the potential pitfalls of the job? I suspect not.

You have got it in a nutshell ImageGear.

"Are you prepared to go to war, on the instructions of your government, on pain of Courts Martial and severe punishment if you refuse and are you prepared to stand trial up to fifty years after any life threatening encounter, with a recognised enemy, when, in the heat of the battle, an incident may occur that is without the pertaining ROE, even though you managed to save not only your life but those of your colleagues and win the encounter to the advantage of the government that sent you to war in the first place?

A simple YES or NO will suffice."

[Dougie M]

There is a slimy thread which runs through this legal travesty and that is left by the unctuous Phil Shiner. It was his discredited cases regarding the Iraq war which rewarded him handsomely from the public purse. The dossier given to the ICC at the Hague, which is under consideration, was presented by a legal firm called PIL which is owned by the aforesaid lawyer who consistently represents any jihadi with a grudge. This new attempt to denigrate British forces was heralded on the Beeb news last night by a lawyer called Bethany Shiner. What a coincidence. Let us hope that the ICC sees through this farrago as the money spinning exercise that it is.

[Hydraulic Palm Tree]

Birmingham lawyer's daughter launches legal fight against police kettling - Birmingham Post (http://www.birminghampost.co.uk/news/local-news/birmingham-lawyers-daughter-launches-legal-3925260)

[sitigeltfel]

Todays Mac cartoon in the DM....


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/01/05/00/2FCC880900000578-0-To_order_your_own_print_of_this_or_any_other_Mac_cartoon_or_ a_Pu-a-27_1451954815104.jpg

[RoverP4]

To villify the troops now, will deflect attention from our political leaders when the Chilcott Report is published.

Discuss.

[ORAC]

David Cameron calls for action on 'spurious claims' against Iraq veterans (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/22/david-cameron-calls-for-action-on-spurious-claims-against-iraq-veterans)

David Cameron has ordered ministers to take action to clamp down on lawyers pursuing claims against veterans of the Iraq war.

Ministers on the national security council have been given the task of drawing up options to end “spurious claims”, including measures to curb the use of “no win, no fee” arrangements and the requirement that legal aid claimants must have lived in the UK for 12 months.

Law firms found to have abused the system could face tougher penalties under the measures being considered.

A No 10 source said: “The prime minister is deeply concerned at the large number of spurious claims being made against members of our armed forces. He is absolutely clear that action needs to be taken and has asked the national security council to produce a clear, detailed plan on how we stop former troops facing this torment.”

The clampdown on the financial incentives will be accompanied by tough action against any firms found to have abused the system in the past to pursue fabricated claims.

Law firm Leigh Day has already been referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as a result of the failure to disclose a key document to the £31m Al-Sweady inquiry. The inquiry concluded in its final report in December 2014 that allegations of war crimes following the Battle of Danny Boy on 14 May 2004 in southern Iraq were based on “deliberate lies, reckless speculation and ingrained hostility”.

Once disciplinary proceedings have been completed against any firm, the defence secretary Michael Fallon has been ordered to prepare the ground for seeking to recover as much of the taxpayers’ money spent on the inquiry as possible................

[A and C]

Two or more years ago on these pages I said that action should be taken against the Lawyers who at the time were taking actions that can only be discribed as fishing trips against British servicemen.

These posts instantly disappeared, the moderators no doubt in fear of leagal action by PIL or Leigh Day, well the boot is on the other foot now with said lawyers facing hearings into their conduct, as well as the govenment looking at action to recover funds that these people claimed via the leagal aid system.

I very much look forward to the day that a serviceman takes leagal action against these ambulance chasing lawyers for the psychological damage done for the years of torment resulting from these dubious leagal cases.

It is also good that these issues are now open for comment on these pages, as the comments on PPrune are now the least of these lawyers problems I am pleased to observe.

[Heliport]

Birmingham law firm made £900k from false Iraq murder and torture claims - Birmingham Mail (http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/birmingham-law-firm-made-900k-8304603)


Law firm at centre of Al Swaedy inquiry has faced repeated criticism from judges - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11301737/Law-firm-at-centre-of-Al-Swaedy-inquiry-has-faced-repeated-criticism-from-judges.html)


Solicitor behind 1,000 claims against British troops says law firm is the real victim (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3402138/Lawyer-hounding-Iraq-soldiers-says-S-scapegoat-Solicitor-1-000-claims-against-British-troops-says-law-firm-real-victim.html)

[ORAC]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/law-to-protect-soldiers-could-leave-them-facing-war-crimes-tribunal-36nbs3bzj

Law to protect soldiers ‘could leave them facing war crimes tribunal’

Legislation to curb vexatious claims against soldiers is “ill conceived” and could leave them more likely to face prosecution for war crimes, Britain’s most senior military judge has warned. Judge Jeffrey Blackett raised “significant concerns” about the Overseas Operations Bill in a letter, seen by The Times, that he sent last month to Ben Wallace, the defence secretary. A copy of the letter was also sent to the veterans minister, the head of the military and the director of the Service Prosecution Authority.

He warned that although the proposed legislation provides protections for current and former troops from prosecution for domestic offences, it increased the likelihood of them facing war crime charges at The Hague. Judge Blackett, who is judge advocate general of the Armed Forces, also argued that the Bill could “bring the UK armed forces into disrepute” by potentially preventing the prosecution of serious crimes........

The Bill is due to come before the Commons for its second reading before the summer recess, although no date has been set.

It aims to curb bogus and historical allegations via a “triple lock” of measures, including a statutory presumption against criminal prosecution once a five-year period has elapsed after an alleged crime. To override the presumption and press ahead with an “exceptional” prosecution, compelling new evidence must be adduced and the attorney general’s consent secured.

Judge Blackett, who said in his letter that he had not been consulted on the proposed legislation before it was published, called on the government to “think again” about the best way to protect soldiers and veterans from unfounded claims. He set out multiple major concerns about the Bill.

Since it does not cover International Criminal Court (ICC) offences, “it will likely encourage police and prosecutors to focus on war crimes, rather than domestic crimes, to evade the presumption against prosecution” after five years, he said. In addition, if the protections for personnel contained in the Bill were invoked, the ICC itself “may well determine that the UK is (unable or unwilling) to prosecute and initiate its own proceedings”. He warned: “This increases the likelihood of UK service personnel appearing before the ICC in the future.”

He cautioned that the Bill entailed a risk that serious violations would go unpunished, undermining the reputation of the vast majority of UK service personnel who do act within the law. It would be “inconceivable” if crimes such as the shooting dead of a wounded Taliban fighter in Afghanistan, for which Royal Marine Sergeant Alexander Blackman was convicted of manslaughter, escaped prosecution because they came to light after five years, he added.

Judge Blackett also reiterated concerns first raised in March by Dominic Grieve, the former Conservative attorney general, that sexual offences were exempt from the legislation’s presumption against prosecution after five years. This “inconsistency in approach” could lead to the “inequitable” scenario where a soldier who murdered a detainee would have a higher degree of protection from prosecution than one who sexually assaulted a detainee.

Furthermore, the effect of the proposed limitation period after alleged criminal activity “would encourage an accused person to frustrate the progress of investigation past the five-year point to engage a high bar for prosecution”, he said.

Judge Blackett acknowledged the “unnecessary heartache” of soldiers and veterans who faced vexatious claims about their conduct in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said that he shared “unease” about state investigations, which went on “far too long”.

However, he concluded: “The bill as drafted is not the answer.”

It is understood that the defence secretary has not yet replied to the letter, which was sent on May 14, but that he intends to do so......