Tri-Service Prosecution Service
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Tri-Service Prosecution Service
The Times: Officers will lose historic power to charge their men
COMMANDING officers are to lose their historic powers to decide whether to charge their soldiers with serious offences, including murder, rape and human rights abuses. The most senior officers at the top of the chain of command will also be excluded from the decision-making process under new legislation to be laid before Parliament next month.
The decision comes after an unprecedented case this year when a commanding officer of a tank regiment was overruled after he had judged that one of his soldiers had not committed a criminal offence when he shot dead a civilian Iraqi. The commanding officer of the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment ruled that Trooper Kevin Williams, 22, should not be charged. On the evidence available he decided that the soldier had acted within his rules of engagement. However, the case was referred to the Army Prosecuting Authority, and Trooper Williams was duly charged with murder. But when his case came to the Old Bailey in April, the Director of Public Prosecutions dropped the charge and he was formally acquitted.
The case highlighted the complexities of prosecuting soldiers in warzones, when they have to make split-second, life-and-death decisions. The role of the commanding officer who knows his men and understands the dangers they face in a war environment was always considered to be a crucial element of the military prosecution system. Now, however, the Armed Forces Bill that is expected to come into effect in 2008 will remove the right of the commanding officer to make decisions about charges in serious cases. At present his superiors also have the right to give their opinions, and this tradition will also be abolished. In future, they will merely be informed of developments.
Under the Armed Forces Bill, which is to be laid before Parliament on December 1, military investigators in serious cases will have to pass their findings direct to prosecutors. Part of the aim of the new Bill, which will cover all three Services, is to forge a closer and earlier relationship between those who are investigating alleged offences — in the Army’s case it is the Royal Military Police Special Investigations Branch — and the prosecution service. This will be more in line with the civilian police and prosecution system.
The Bill also sets up a single tri-Service prosecution agency, replacing the separate prosecutors for each Service. Courts martial are also to be merged into joint service establishments.
Yesterday as the Ministry of Defence announced its plan for a changed military prosecuting system, General Sir Mike Jackson, the head of the Army, made a bitter attack on critics who have recently accused the Army Prosecuting Authority of charging soldiers with offences in Iraq for political reasons. General Jackson, Chief of the General Staff, said: “It’s a calumny of honest, decent people to imply that they [the Army Prosecuting Authority lawyers] are dancing to a political tune. It’s an outrageous suggestion and a slight on their character and integrity.”
General Jackson said that the authority was independent of the chain of command and independent of the Government, although Lord Goldsmith, QC, the Attorney-General, is consulted on serious cases.
COMMANDING officers are to lose their historic powers to decide whether to charge their soldiers with serious offences, including murder, rape and human rights abuses. The most senior officers at the top of the chain of command will also be excluded from the decision-making process under new legislation to be laid before Parliament next month.
The decision comes after an unprecedented case this year when a commanding officer of a tank regiment was overruled after he had judged that one of his soldiers had not committed a criminal offence when he shot dead a civilian Iraqi. The commanding officer of the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment ruled that Trooper Kevin Williams, 22, should not be charged. On the evidence available he decided that the soldier had acted within his rules of engagement. However, the case was referred to the Army Prosecuting Authority, and Trooper Williams was duly charged with murder. But when his case came to the Old Bailey in April, the Director of Public Prosecutions dropped the charge and he was formally acquitted.
The case highlighted the complexities of prosecuting soldiers in warzones, when they have to make split-second, life-and-death decisions. The role of the commanding officer who knows his men and understands the dangers they face in a war environment was always considered to be a crucial element of the military prosecution system. Now, however, the Armed Forces Bill that is expected to come into effect in 2008 will remove the right of the commanding officer to make decisions about charges in serious cases. At present his superiors also have the right to give their opinions, and this tradition will also be abolished. In future, they will merely be informed of developments.
Under the Armed Forces Bill, which is to be laid before Parliament on December 1, military investigators in serious cases will have to pass their findings direct to prosecutors. Part of the aim of the new Bill, which will cover all three Services, is to forge a closer and earlier relationship between those who are investigating alleged offences — in the Army’s case it is the Royal Military Police Special Investigations Branch — and the prosecution service. This will be more in line with the civilian police and prosecution system.
The Bill also sets up a single tri-Service prosecution agency, replacing the separate prosecutors for each Service. Courts martial are also to be merged into joint service establishments.
Yesterday as the Ministry of Defence announced its plan for a changed military prosecuting system, General Sir Mike Jackson, the head of the Army, made a bitter attack on critics who have recently accused the Army Prosecuting Authority of charging soldiers with offences in Iraq for political reasons. General Jackson, Chief of the General Staff, said: “It’s a calumny of honest, decent people to imply that they [the Army Prosecuting Authority lawyers] are dancing to a political tune. It’s an outrageous suggestion and a slight on their character and integrity.”
General Jackson said that the authority was independent of the chain of command and independent of the Government, although Lord Goldsmith, QC, the Attorney-General, is consulted on serious cases.
Yet again more meddling by a bunch of politicians from their comfy offices who have no idea of the realities of military life or active operations. This is going to have serious ramifications for those on operations - how long do you have to be shot at before you think you can return fire in self defence without running the risk of offending some tree-hugging politician? If not that, then I think we will see a wave of troops at the front line leaving - after all who is going to want to serve in an armed forces where your right to self defence has become almost theoretical and operations are conducted by giving the enemy a damn good talking to?
As for Gen Jacksons 'outrage' ...... clearly been nobbled with the promise of a seat in the Lords, a comfy retirement or some other such inducement by a morally bankrupt government. How on earth can he say that troops being charged didn't have ANY political influence.
Now I'm not a lawyer and admit to not being aware of the full facts, but surely Trooper Williams' CO will have come to a reasoned decision based on the facts to hand of what happened in an operational theatre; how on earth can some shimfing lawyer that has probably only ever been overseas to sample the delights of Club 18-30, and who's only experience of operations is gained from watching Casualty on TV over rule that? The speed with which Williams was acquited suggests that there was never a case to answer in the first place, so why was it persued if not for political reasons? Of course the APA is independent ..... right up until you start getting Tony's mate Goldsmith involved. Where's the political neutrality there?
I was always taught that justice is blind; now it seems that as far as the military are concerned justice has more to do with the morals and ethics (or lack of) of which ever politician is in power.
Rant over, got to get back to planning the next invasion
As for Gen Jacksons 'outrage' ...... clearly been nobbled with the promise of a seat in the Lords, a comfy retirement or some other such inducement by a morally bankrupt government. How on earth can he say that troops being charged didn't have ANY political influence.
Now I'm not a lawyer and admit to not being aware of the full facts, but surely Trooper Williams' CO will have come to a reasoned decision based on the facts to hand of what happened in an operational theatre; how on earth can some shimfing lawyer that has probably only ever been overseas to sample the delights of Club 18-30, and who's only experience of operations is gained from watching Casualty on TV over rule that? The speed with which Williams was acquited suggests that there was never a case to answer in the first place, so why was it persued if not for political reasons? Of course the APA is independent ..... right up until you start getting Tony's mate Goldsmith involved. Where's the political neutrality there?
I was always taught that justice is blind; now it seems that as far as the military are concerned justice has more to do with the morals and ethics (or lack of) of which ever politician is in power.
Rant over, got to get back to planning the next invasion
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK then, but just as the Int Corps used to insist (maybe they still do) that JOs did a 2 year tour with an Inf Bn / Cav Regt on ops before they got into the Corps proper, then surely all our gallant legal beagles should do a 2 year stint facing enemy fire, rioters and petrol bombers before they park their well-upholstered behinds on some £1,000-a-pop MoD armchair in a comfy office.
At least then we could be confident they have some appreciation they know what they are poring over when they hang a squaddie out to dry for 2 years pre-trial.
If we don't do that, what's the point of having a dedicated pool of lawyers who happen to wear a uniform but answer to the DPP? May as well just refer cases direct to the DPP and have done with it!
At least then we could be confident they have some appreciation they know what they are poring over when they hang a squaddie out to dry for 2 years pre-trial.
If we don't do that, what's the point of having a dedicated pool of lawyers who happen to wear a uniform but answer to the DPP? May as well just refer cases direct to the DPP and have done with it!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
then surely all our gallant legal beagles should do a 2 year stint facing enemy fire, rioters and petrol bombers before they park their well-upholstered behinds on some £1,000-a-pop MoD armchair in a comfy office.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe the powers that be would get the message if every serviceman wrote to his commanding officer asking for a clear statement as to what circumstanced must prevail before they are legally entitled to fire live ammunition at another person.
Commanding officers would then have to send the request to DLS to be answered.
The commanding officers should demand that DLS officers accompany EVERY group of soldiers in the field to guide them on the legal aspects of their actions.
It's the only way I can see of safeguarding our troops from either getting it wrong or making a bad judgement call in the heat of battle. The responsibility for error would thus be lifted from the shoulders of the squaddie and placed where it belongs, in the hands of someone who has had formal legal training.
Commanding officers would then have to send the request to DLS to be answered.
The commanding officers should demand that DLS officers accompany EVERY group of soldiers in the field to guide them on the legal aspects of their actions.
It's the only way I can see of safeguarding our troops from either getting it wrong or making a bad judgement call in the heat of battle. The responsibility for error would thus be lifted from the shoulders of the squaddie and placed where it belongs, in the hands of someone who has had formal legal training.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 47
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Worse still, as well as making sure a legal beagle is attached to every patrol, they can also be the ones to give the order to fire. After all, they are apparently the only ones qualified to do so!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Sir, I have recently become aware of metal projectiles making their way in my general direction. I write requesting your consideration in this matter. Please respond at the earliest opportunity - by return post if possible - to resolve this unfortunate set of cicumstances.
Your obedient servant etc etc....
Pte Bloggs
PS. Too Late
Your obedient servant etc etc....
Pte Bloggs
PS. Too Late
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
The Times: Civilians to have role in military law
By Michael Evans, Defence Editor
A CIVILIAN director of prosecutions for the Armed Forces is proposed in a Bill covering discipline and conduct in the three Services. It is one of a radical group of proposals that will lead to the scrapping of certain historic offences, including “scandalous conduct by an officer”.
The Armed Forces Bill, published by the Ministry of Defence yesterday, gives an expanded role to a new tri-Service military criminal justice system. All serious offences, which at present are dealt with in the early stages by the commanding officer, will now be handed straight to prosecutors.
Don Touhig, the junior Defence Minister, said that one of the options was to appoint a civilian to head the new streamlined prosecution service. An alternative was to employ a retired senior officer with appropriate legal experience. The MoD lawyers have drawn up a long list of offences which, if the Bill is approved by Parliament, will be taken out of the hands of commanding officers.
They include misconduct on operations, looting, mutiny, murder, manslaughter, causing death by dangerous driving, war crimes, attempting to “injure or alarm the Sovereign”, and “keeping a brothel”.
Another list has been drawn up for the Bill which will outline offences on which commanding officers will be able to take summary action. These include theft, possession of a controlled drug, criminal damage, assault and battery and careless driving.
MoD officials said the commanding officer would still be paramount in dealing with discipline. However, in serious cases, evidence would have to be supplied direct to the Service prosecutors for a decision on whether the suspect should be charged. Under the present, slower, system, that decision is made by the commander then reviewed by higher authority.
The changing status of the commanding officer is likely to meet opposition in the Commons and the House of Lords when the Bill is debated.
By Michael Evans, Defence Editor
A CIVILIAN director of prosecutions for the Armed Forces is proposed in a Bill covering discipline and conduct in the three Services. It is one of a radical group of proposals that will lead to the scrapping of certain historic offences, including “scandalous conduct by an officer”.
The Armed Forces Bill, published by the Ministry of Defence yesterday, gives an expanded role to a new tri-Service military criminal justice system. All serious offences, which at present are dealt with in the early stages by the commanding officer, will now be handed straight to prosecutors.
Don Touhig, the junior Defence Minister, said that one of the options was to appoint a civilian to head the new streamlined prosecution service. An alternative was to employ a retired senior officer with appropriate legal experience. The MoD lawyers have drawn up a long list of offences which, if the Bill is approved by Parliament, will be taken out of the hands of commanding officers.
They include misconduct on operations, looting, mutiny, murder, manslaughter, causing death by dangerous driving, war crimes, attempting to “injure or alarm the Sovereign”, and “keeping a brothel”.
Another list has been drawn up for the Bill which will outline offences on which commanding officers will be able to take summary action. These include theft, possession of a controlled drug, criminal damage, assault and battery and careless driving.
MoD officials said the commanding officer would still be paramount in dealing with discipline. However, in serious cases, evidence would have to be supplied direct to the Service prosecutors for a decision on whether the suspect should be charged. Under the present, slower, system, that decision is made by the commander then reviewed by higher authority.
The changing status of the commanding officer is likely to meet opposition in the Commons and the House of Lords when the Bill is debated.
