Armed Forces Justice system falling apart
"I have no live rounds or empty cases in my possession, Sir."
End of.
But I wonder what action would have been taken had he been the "Sir", especially a very senior one.
End of.
But I wonder what action would have been taken had he been the "Sir", especially a very senior one.
This has led to the jailing of people who found guns and handed them into the police and a widow who found her husband had hidden a handgun in the house. Since there is no allowance in the law ("without reasonable excuse" is usually written in) judges have no option but to find people guilty.
My other half organises a burn run of one or two pickup loads of firearms and shotguns handed into her firearms department every quarter and most of them are found after deaths, in the 12 years she has worked there they have never charged anyone who has handed in found weapons. They have jailed plenty who have had weapons found during searches and tried to use an excuse.
It will only get to the CPS if there is something fishy.
Last edited by gsa; 29th Nov 2012 at 11:30.
Originally Posted by gsa
Total Rubbish!!
A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for "doing his duty".
Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday – after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year.
The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction, and Mr Clarke now faces a minimum of five year's imprisonment for handing in the weapon.
In a statement read out in court, Mr Clarke said: "I didn't think for one moment I would be arrested.
"I thought it was my duty to hand it in and get it off the streets."
OF course in that particular case, it wasnt reported that there had been a significant timelapse between his finding the gun and handing it in (IIRC it was the region of a week).
Had he gone straight to the station then he'd have been fine, but hanging on for a week is what did for him.
Had he gone straight to the station then he'd have been fine, but hanging on for a week is what did for him.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: UK
Age: 42
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ECoHR
I don't think many would argue that a CO summary hearing is essential for disciplining junior ranks who fall out of line. The system needs to be quick decisive and need not be completely fair. (It's about discipline after all.)
However since given the powers to undertake criminal proceedings that carry a recordable criminal conviction under AFA 2006, this in my belief needs to result in a fair trial. It's one thing finding someone guilty for being generally late, scruffy and ill-disciplined, however if a Commanding Officer is able to find an individual guilty of Assault and Battery (and in Bale Baleiwai's case nearly get him deported). It must be a fair trial, a conviction can have life changing implications outside HM Forces.
Most worrying is that Bale, at a recent trial de nova (trial granted in exceptional circumstances) was found not guilty by a judge. This calls into question why his Commanding Officer got it wrong in the first place!
Although out the RAF for 4 years now, I have been experiencing problems with a summary hearing conviction for a scuffed door (Ł40 stoppage of pay and criminal damage conviction I did not realise I had as it predates AFA2006). I believe my CO decided to deliberately criminalise rather than discipline me. Would the ability to deliver effective Air Power be severely hampered if instead of a Ł40 fine and a criminal record for a scuffed door, I had been given a weeks restriction of privileges?
In my experience I also believe my RAF police interview tapes have been edited, (unproved allegation at the moment but hopefully the truth will come out). If this is the case, we have a police force with no independent oversight, breaking the law unpunished. The whole system needs examining
However since given the powers to undertake criminal proceedings that carry a recordable criminal conviction under AFA 2006, this in my belief needs to result in a fair trial. It's one thing finding someone guilty for being generally late, scruffy and ill-disciplined, however if a Commanding Officer is able to find an individual guilty of Assault and Battery (and in Bale Baleiwai's case nearly get him deported). It must be a fair trial, a conviction can have life changing implications outside HM Forces.
Most worrying is that Bale, at a recent trial de nova (trial granted in exceptional circumstances) was found not guilty by a judge. This calls into question why his Commanding Officer got it wrong in the first place!
Although out the RAF for 4 years now, I have been experiencing problems with a summary hearing conviction for a scuffed door (Ł40 stoppage of pay and criminal damage conviction I did not realise I had as it predates AFA2006). I believe my CO decided to deliberately criminalise rather than discipline me. Would the ability to deliver effective Air Power be severely hampered if instead of a Ł40 fine and a criminal record for a scuffed door, I had been given a weeks restriction of privileges?
In my experience I also believe my RAF police interview tapes have been edited, (unproved allegation at the moment but hopefully the truth will come out). If this is the case, we have a police force with no independent oversight, breaking the law unpunished. The whole system needs examining
Gentleman Aviator
One wonders how many of the 100k-ish petition signers (or indeed posters here) have read the CM transcript rather than just the Daily Wail/Scum.
Transcript is in the public domain and may be seen here.
If you read it, you may well think:
a. Danny N got a pretty good deal, particularly considering the ammunition bit (which no-one seems to mention much)
And
b. He certainly got a better deal than he would in a civvy court.
He was neither dismissed the Service nor reduced in rank - both very unusual.
Transcript is in the public domain and may be seen here.
If you read it, you may well think:
a. Danny N got a pretty good deal, particularly considering the ammunition bit (which no-one seems to mention much)
And
b. He certainly got a better deal than he would in a civvy court.
He was neither dismissed the Service nor reduced in rank - both very unusual.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: UK
Age: 42
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Change needed regardless.
100,000 Signatures have still been signed none the less, and that indicates public support. Would he have the same support if not HM Forces? I doubt it, therefore it proves the public (or 100,000 of them at least) would support a Court Martial system that gives servicemen preferential treatment.
Avionic Toad.
I am sure that there are abberations in ther Service justice system, but before everyone jumps on the band-wagon about 'poor' Sgt Nightingale, I strongly suggest that they follow TTH's advice and read the trancript. I understand, by the wway, the JA was a Group captain before he retired from theService.
I am sure that there are abberations in ther Service justice system, but before everyone jumps on the band-wagon about 'poor' Sgt Nightingale, I strongly suggest that they follow TTH's advice and read the trancript. I understand, by the wway, the JA was a Group captain before he retired from theService.
Gentleman Aviator
I understand, by the way, the JA was a Group captain before he retired from theService.
Last edited by teeteringhead; 29th Nov 2012 at 12:33.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hants
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are three strands here: Oversight, justice and the court of public opinion.
On the day of the publication of the Leveson report the most important of them is "Oversight". Whilst the Service Justice system has been overhauled and CMs are now "fair" in accordance with ECHR rulings, they are conducted by properly trained and qualifieed individuals and subject to both scrutiny and appeal.
Lower level disciplinary hearings are conducted (and advised) by unqualified individuals and held in private/secret and include strange offences peculiar to the AF with no equivalent in the law as applied to civilians. (Sometimes for good reason: "sleeping on watch"; "negligence" etc. The real problem comes when an attempt is made to bring parity between what are essentially contractual breaches of an employent contract (if we had one) and criminal convictions. This is the bone of contention. The culture of the AF discourages answering back and an understanding of duties, rights and privileges. The army in particular has a population which has a disproportionatelty low educartional level for the amount of resposibility involved. This lower level of military justice is subject to (possibly unintentional) bullying and requires better oversight and supervision. It is not trusted.
"Justice" is served in different ways and every case is unique. Learned and independent judges (including now the Judge Advocate at CM) have to weigh an imperfect law (often hastily conceived by inexpert politicians without a view to the unintended consequences) against all the aggravating and mitigating factors. Often when verdicts appear incongruous, people have been prosecuted for the wrong thing (often for political reasons). The farmer (Martin) whose conviction for manslaughter was overturned having shot and killed an intruder would have not faced prosecution today for this action (but might have served just as long for illegal possession of firearms): the lesser offence was "lost" in an attempt to prosecute for the higher.
This is where the court of public opinion comes in. My exposure to the Special Needs community in Defence has suggested that they have the capacity to be both extremely professional and stunningly cavalier. We don't know all the facts in this case (and maybe we shouldn't) but if the Telegraph had said in its reporting "trophy pistol and hundreds of rounds of (assorted) ammunition" there might have been fewer signatures.
There is much criminal legislation in this country which is badly thought through from firearms to foxhunting to foreigners overstaying their welcome: if our legislators were brighter and more honest, perhaps this might not be the case.
On the day of the publication of the Leveson report the most important of them is "Oversight". Whilst the Service Justice system has been overhauled and CMs are now "fair" in accordance with ECHR rulings, they are conducted by properly trained and qualifieed individuals and subject to both scrutiny and appeal.
Lower level disciplinary hearings are conducted (and advised) by unqualified individuals and held in private/secret and include strange offences peculiar to the AF with no equivalent in the law as applied to civilians. (Sometimes for good reason: "sleeping on watch"; "negligence" etc. The real problem comes when an attempt is made to bring parity between what are essentially contractual breaches of an employent contract (if we had one) and criminal convictions. This is the bone of contention. The culture of the AF discourages answering back and an understanding of duties, rights and privileges. The army in particular has a population which has a disproportionatelty low educartional level for the amount of resposibility involved. This lower level of military justice is subject to (possibly unintentional) bullying and requires better oversight and supervision. It is not trusted.
"Justice" is served in different ways and every case is unique. Learned and independent judges (including now the Judge Advocate at CM) have to weigh an imperfect law (often hastily conceived by inexpert politicians without a view to the unintended consequences) against all the aggravating and mitigating factors. Often when verdicts appear incongruous, people have been prosecuted for the wrong thing (often for political reasons). The farmer (Martin) whose conviction for manslaughter was overturned having shot and killed an intruder would have not faced prosecution today for this action (but might have served just as long for illegal possession of firearms): the lesser offence was "lost" in an attempt to prosecute for the higher.
This is where the court of public opinion comes in. My exposure to the Special Needs community in Defence has suggested that they have the capacity to be both extremely professional and stunningly cavalier. We don't know all the facts in this case (and maybe we shouldn't) but if the Telegraph had said in its reporting "trophy pistol and hundreds of rounds of (assorted) ammunition" there might have been fewer signatures.
There is much criminal legislation in this country which is badly thought through from firearms to foxhunting to foreigners overstaying their welcome: if our legislators were brighter and more honest, perhaps this might not be the case.
Last edited by fawkes; 29th Nov 2012 at 16:27. Reason: fat fingered typos
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Debated as below;
House of Commons Hansard Debates for 20 Nov 2012 (pt 0004)
House of Commons Hansard Debates for 20 Nov 2012 (pt 0004)
20 Nov 2012 : Column 554
During the search, the police uncovered the weapon belonging to Danny Nightingale, which was still in its container in a cupboard and a quantity of ammunition under his bed. I understand that the unit held an immediate weapons amnesty and that an embarrassingly large number of weapons turned up in the skip that was conveniently provided overnight.
Most parts of the Army have been engaged in dangerous and often bloody operations. Where special forces are different from the rest of the Army is that they do not leave that regime on coming back to the UK. Typically, as was the case with Sergeant Nightingale, they remain on very short notice to move for long periods, which entails keeping live ammunition in their kit. They are, of course, subject to the same law and the same internal rules as other parts of the Army, but the pressure and temptation on tired, overstretched men to take weapons and kit containing live rounds back to their accommodation is of a different order of magnitude. It is clear from the article by Sergeant Nightingale’s gallant former commanding officer, Colonel Richard Williams MBE MC, that the amnesty revealed that a number of people in the regiment had got into bad habits under the extreme pressure of operational tours abroad and the high-readiness cycle at home.
During the search, the police uncovered the weapon belonging to Danny Nightingale, which was still in its container in a cupboard and a quantity of ammunition under his bed. I understand that the unit held an immediate weapons amnesty and that an embarrassingly large number of weapons turned up in the skip that was conveniently provided overnight.
Most parts of the Army have been engaged in dangerous and often bloody operations. Where special forces are different from the rest of the Army is that they do not leave that regime on coming back to the UK. Typically, as was the case with Sergeant Nightingale, they remain on very short notice to move for long periods, which entails keeping live ammunition in their kit. They are, of course, subject to the same law and the same internal rules as other parts of the Army, but the pressure and temptation on tired, overstretched men to take weapons and kit containing live rounds back to their accommodation is of a different order of magnitude. It is clear from the article by Sergeant Nightingale’s gallant former commanding officer, Colonel Richard Williams MBE MC, that the amnesty revealed that a number of people in the regiment had got into bad habits under the extreme pressure of operational tours abroad and the high-readiness cycle at home.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: UK
Age: 42
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Changes
The fact that so many SAS guys handed in weapons in the amnesty highlights the problem. (I believe the flatmate of Sgt. Nightingale is still serving a sentence.) The regular usage of non standard weapons, the operational tempo and way of life of our special forces, I imagine would make the brining back of firearms more prevalent than in other units.
How many occupations external to our Armed forces would place an individual in a situation whereby if they bring their tools of the trade home it would count as breaking the law, and if caught would result in a mandatory custodial sentence? I firmly believe that our Armed Forces are in a unique position and that they should not be judged in the same light as civilians.
A common sense approach more geared to the needs and expectations to the service in my opinion would be far better. Something akin to the Court Martial system before the Armed Forces Act 2006 (before the ECoHR forced various changes) would be more beneficial.
On the flip side I firmly believe that there should be a clear distinction between discipline and criminal offences (perhaps things have changed since my conviction I knew nothing about), but the very fact in the Baleiwai case the Commanding Officer and accused did not know it would result in a criminal conviction is ridiculous.
I'd appreciate any thoughts or comments on summary hearings anyone may have.
How many occupations external to our Armed forces would place an individual in a situation whereby if they bring their tools of the trade home it would count as breaking the law, and if caught would result in a mandatory custodial sentence? I firmly believe that our Armed Forces are in a unique position and that they should not be judged in the same light as civilians.
A common sense approach more geared to the needs and expectations to the service in my opinion would be far better. Something akin to the Court Martial system before the Armed Forces Act 2006 (before the ECoHR forced various changes) would be more beneficial.
On the flip side I firmly believe that there should be a clear distinction between discipline and criminal offences (perhaps things have changed since my conviction I knew nothing about), but the very fact in the Baleiwai case the Commanding Officer and accused did not know it would result in a criminal conviction is ridiculous.
I'd appreciate any thoughts or comments on summary hearings anyone may have.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: UK
Age: 42
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would say the dreaded ECoHR is to blame. (That said the forces mentality of respecting and not challenging higher ranks can allow for out and out corruption in certain instances. In my experience this needs addressing)
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heard rumours of threats to remove the op bonus for lads in theatre for minor disciplinary matters (eg hair too long or not wearing the correct I.p.e.)
I also find the idea of significant charges for accidental n.d. On ranges or in training somewhat outdated, and more likely for individuals to hide accidents than report them.
I also find the idea of significant charges for accidental n.d. On ranges or in training somewhat outdated, and more likely for individuals to hide accidents than report them.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
unit held an immediate weapons amnesty and that an embarrassingly large number of weapons turned up in the skip
This was only 2 years ago at a pre-Afg training not that far from me.
Nearer me was an RAuxAF Regt FS who accumulated 'spare' ammunition in a lockup on base as a convenience rather than account and hand in to the armoury.
"How many occupations external to our Armed forces would place an individual in a situation whereby if they bring their tools of the trade home it would count as breaking the law, and if caught would result in a mandatory custodial sentence? I firmly believe that our Armed Forces are in a unique position and that they should not be judged in the same light as civilians"
Rubbish! There are many people, service and civilian, out there who handle weapons and explosives all the time who do not take their "tools" home with them. They all seem to understand the importance of leaving their work securely at work.
When offered the chance of a weapon amnesty even his fellow SAS gave up their illegally held weapons indicating their new-found awareness of wrong-doing. To me this appears to be a case of shoddy oversight by SAS seniority who, possibly doing the same thing, created a "Norm" of keeping a few "trophies" behind.
Anyway, the Public have voted him out now - so no more bush-tucker trials for a while.
Rubbish! There are many people, service and civilian, out there who handle weapons and explosives all the time who do not take their "tools" home with them. They all seem to understand the importance of leaving their work securely at work.
When offered the chance of a weapon amnesty even his fellow SAS gave up their illegally held weapons indicating their new-found awareness of wrong-doing. To me this appears to be a case of shoddy oversight by SAS seniority who, possibly doing the same thing, created a "Norm" of keeping a few "trophies" behind.
Anyway, the Public have voted him out now - so no more bush-tucker trials for a while.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,095
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are many people, service and civilian, out there who handle weapons and
explosives all the time who do not take their "tools" home with them.
They all seem to understand the importance of leaving their work securely at
work.
explosives all the time who do not take their "tools" home with them.
They all seem to understand the importance of leaving their work securely at
work.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,095
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, don't be so mysterious Rigga, who are you talking about in such large numbers whose only difference to the SAS is that they 'might not travel so far'?