Gilbert Blades - The Scourge of UK MOD Courts Martial
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Age: 84
Posts: 897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
During two years [1974-76]in ANZUK I [Flt Lt RNZAF] had occasion to observe the Gordon Highlanders summary justice system in action. Every Monday morning there would appear a young Jock in full dress uniform heading to the Guardrom for his customary three days. I did note that one young fella appeared with some frequency, then his visits suddenly ceased. My WO was very friendly with the Gordon' CSM and at our Officer's /SNCOs Xmas invite, he asked me if he could bring along the Gordon's chap. Over a beer I asked him about the regular visitor to the Guardroom, and he said, "Och I cured that myself. I took him behind the guardroom and thumped him".
I showed some brown uniform types round a RAF station which was about to close and which they were thinking of taking over - to the chagrin of the local population. They liked the place a lot. Their only comment was they were suprised the guardroom only had one cell. "We'll have to build more!" they said.
''I heard tell that, on seeing Gilbert's rather flamboyant arrival (posh car with personal plates etc.), the prosecuter was seen to turn to a colleague and ask "Is this bloke any good...??".
A Rolls Royce with the registration GB1 I recall. He had a low opinion of the military legal services, an opinion which was justified by his success. I'm not sure if the Roller was due to his abilities - or the lack of quality in his opposition.
A Rolls Royce with the registration GB1 I recall. He had a low opinion of the military legal services, an opinion which was justified by his success. I'm not sure if the Roller was due to his abilities - or the lack of quality in his opposition.
A Rolls Royce with the registration GB1 I recall.
Often seen the beast parked near his offices when they were down the Glory Hole.
PN, man 1 appeared before Stn Cdr pleading guilty, resulting in 28 days detention.
Man 2 was later court martialled and successfully defended by GB.
Man 1 having completed his 28 days realised that if Man 2 was not guilty, the same must apply to him.
As mentioned before this occurred in the 70s, if not late 1960s. I lived in the same block as this pair and can vouch for the fact there was at least restitution of pay to man 1.
Man 2 was later court martialled and successfully defended by GB.
Man 1 having completed his 28 days realised that if Man 2 was not guilty, the same must apply to him.
As mentioned before this occurred in the 70s, if not late 1960s. I lived in the same block as this pair and can vouch for the fact there was at least restitution of pay to man 1.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
dkh, my comment was sarcastic.
We all know that the investigations are so thorough that the innocent were never charged which of course made the work of the defending officer so easy.
We all know that the investigations are so thorough that the innocent were never charged which of course made the work of the defending officer so easy.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Devizes
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having sat as the JM on 2 RAF Regt courtmartials over 3 consecutive days at Lossie in the late 80s, the members of the board went out to a well known location in Findhorn for dinner where we also found the prosecution, the court writer and GB. The latter commented that all we needed now were the defendants.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
How does the law look on the Man 1/Man 2 thing?
The Crown need present no evidence, surely, if Man 1 pleads guilty. By his own admission, "he did it". Does what Man 2 or Man 14 did have any bearing at all on Man 1's predicament? I think not, but don't know for sure.
I suppose if the SIB have beaten the crap out of him in the cells, then that might be grounds to say he only plead guilty to make it stop, but he'd have to prove it.
The Crown need present no evidence, surely, if Man 1 pleads guilty. By his own admission, "he did it". Does what Man 2 or Man 14 did have any bearing at all on Man 1's predicament? I think not, but don't know for sure.
I suppose if the SIB have beaten the crap out of him in the cells, then that might be grounds to say he only plead guilty to make it stop, but he'd have to prove it.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South of Old Warden
Age: 87
Posts: 1,375
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
At Abingdon in the 'mid '60's an airman was caught and charged for stealing petrol from another airman's car. On investigation it was discovered that the stolen petrol was, in fact, aviation fuel. The owner of the car was then charged for stealing HM's property.
The car owner was given 28 days jankers. The chap who stole from his car was given 90 days in Colchester. It was deemed that stealing from a comrade was more serious than stealing from HM!
The car owner was given 28 days jankers. The chap who stole from his car was given 90 days in Colchester. It was deemed that stealing from a comrade was more serious than stealing from HM!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South of England
Age: 74
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Roadster
I tend to agree with you, Roadster. If Man 1 plead guilty, then he admitted doing the crime and could be, rightfully convicted.
However, the court should always consider whether, given what they know of the evidence and any other circumstances surrounding the case, it would be right to accept a guilty plea (I don't think the court has to accept a guilty plea if they don't think it would be right to do so or if they think the evidence should be tested in open court, regardless of the accused's wishes).
So:
a. Either it was a lawful conviction following a guilty plea, in which case it is difficult to see that the outcome of any subsequent trial, of another accused person, should have any bearing on Man 1. Or...
b. The court shouldn't have accepted his guilty plea and should have held a full trial of the evidence against him. In which case it might be that he was wrongfully convicted and is therefore entitled to appropriate redress.
I don't know which scenario is correct, but it's interesting isn't it?
Now, what about GB?
Rgds SOS
However, the court should always consider whether, given what they know of the evidence and any other circumstances surrounding the case, it would be right to accept a guilty plea (I don't think the court has to accept a guilty plea if they don't think it would be right to do so or if they think the evidence should be tested in open court, regardless of the accused's wishes).
So:
a. Either it was a lawful conviction following a guilty plea, in which case it is difficult to see that the outcome of any subsequent trial, of another accused person, should have any bearing on Man 1. Or...
b. The court shouldn't have accepted his guilty plea and should have held a full trial of the evidence against him. In which case it might be that he was wrongfully convicted and is therefore entitled to appropriate redress.
I don't know which scenario is correct, but it's interesting isn't it?
Now, what about GB?
Rgds SOS
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Fletcher Memorial Home
Age: 59
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was generally accepted (well within the circles I travelled) that a sure sign of admitting guilt was when you hired Mr Blades to run your defence.
In fact for some time I was convinced that Gilberts' first name was in fact "Guilty" as he always seemed to be referred to as "Guilty Blades"
In fact for some time I was convinced that Gilberts' first name was in fact "Guilty" as he always seemed to be referred to as "Guilty Blades"
I showed some brown uniform types round a RAF station which was about to close and which they were thinking of taking over - to the chagrin of the local population. They liked the place a lot. Their only comment was they were suprised the guardroom only had one cell. "We'll have to build more!" they said.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Gentleman Aviator
It was deemed that stealing from a comrade was more serious than stealing from HM!
When a young subaltern, he had decided to carry out a no-notice block/barrack inspection of his troop. He was not put off by his wise SNCO i/c firmly trying to tell him that it would not be a good idea that night.
During the inspection, he discovered one poor trooper, sat by his bed, with his hand firmly affixed to his bedside locker - with a commando-style knife through the palm!
SNCO i/c: "Theft from a comrade Sir, he won't do it again!"
Well, I suppose the story does involves military discipline ...... and Blades!!
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lixwm,Flintshire
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rush to Justice
How does the law look on the Man 1/Man 2 thing?
The Crown need present no evidence, surely, if Man 1 pleads guilty. By his own admission, "he did it". Does what Man 2 or Man 14 did have any bearing at all on Man 1's predicament? I think not, but don't know for sure
The Crown need present no evidence, surely, if Man 1 pleads guilty. By his own admission, "he did it". Does what Man 2 or Man 14 did have any bearing at all on Man 1's predicament? I think not, but don't know for sure
Surely the hearing of the charges against Man 2 at station level should not have taken place until after the CM as it was prejudicial to those proceedings.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact that someone is found not guilty does not mean they didn't do it, just that the case against them is not proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
That is why there are often private prosecutions after a criminal case has found the defendant not guilty. The private prosecution goes through the civil system where the proof does not have to be as conclusive as the criminal court.
If man 2 got off, it does not mean that he did not commit the crime, but that the prosecution failed to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. The fact that man 1 pleaded guilty really sealed his fate. He was probably given his pay for that period as that can be administratively dealt with and perhaps the system felt he had a case.
If he though he had a case to sue, the question would be put by the prosecution 'so why plead guilty then?' Unless he had a cast iron defence, it would certainly muddy the water. The MOD would make it as hard as possible for the individual to win and he would probably have to risk significant money fighting the case. It would probably not be worth the risk to him, especially as he had been given the unexpected bonus of getting the back pay for his 28 day holiday.
GB2
That is why there are often private prosecutions after a criminal case has found the defendant not guilty. The private prosecution goes through the civil system where the proof does not have to be as conclusive as the criminal court.
If man 2 got off, it does not mean that he did not commit the crime, but that the prosecution failed to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. The fact that man 1 pleaded guilty really sealed his fate. He was probably given his pay for that period as that can be administratively dealt with and perhaps the system felt he had a case.
If he though he had a case to sue, the question would be put by the prosecution 'so why plead guilty then?' Unless he had a cast iron defence, it would certainly muddy the water. The MOD would make it as hard as possible for the individual to win and he would probably have to risk significant money fighting the case. It would probably not be worth the risk to him, especially as he had been given the unexpected bonus of getting the back pay for his 28 day holiday.
GB2