Armed Forces Bill - Big Changes for RAF
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Armed Forces Bill - Big Changes for RAF
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
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
Last edited by Scud-U-Like; 6th Dec 2005 at 10:13.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Maybe we might finally get that CAA dispensation too!
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
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!
Must be a plan to remove the LFAs through the back door
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!
Last edited by CBA_caption; 6th Dec 2005 at 09:27.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: northside
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Britain
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The service police will have the power to arrest any officer, regardless of rank, for a service offence.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: northside
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hebra Outerdies
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 46
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
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).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Scud-U-Like; 7th Dec 2005 at 11:14.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hebra Outerdies
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!
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!!
