Armed Forces Justice system falling apart
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
It's not just the "Justice" system that's fundamentally broken.
20-something members of HMF cause damage to their accommodation on a regular basis. As already identified, to some extent this goes with the territory. That, I understand.
However, if the transgressor is a Pte/SAC, he's probably going to jail. If he's a Fg Offr/Lt, he's probably looking at "non-judicial punishment". What's the difference in the crime? None. Whats the difference in the effect of a charge against the offender? Career over for the officer. This is based on the idea of an officer's integrity being unimpeachable. Clearly, in some cases, that is not the case. Riding a motorbike through the mess, torching objects various, sabotaging functions, these either are "character building" or are a discipline problem. Whether it was the block or the Mess should not be the deciding factor.
While for some, the issue of "RHIP" or "should have tried harder at school" is a convenient excuse; for certain others, the fact that they tried harder at school is exactly why they are NOT officers. Most of HMF's technical brains reside in the enlisted ranks rather than the commissioned ones, and the notion of "should have tried harder" is nonsensical.
I contend that there are more problems than simply the judicial system. In a world where it is commonplace for a junior officer to have less disposable income than a junior soldier/airman of equivalent experience/age, the idea of imposing "voluntary" fines on officers and making the OR tap the boards is both laughable and insulting.
Time for change.
20-something members of HMF cause damage to their accommodation on a regular basis. As already identified, to some extent this goes with the territory. That, I understand.
However, if the transgressor is a Pte/SAC, he's probably going to jail. If he's a Fg Offr/Lt, he's probably looking at "non-judicial punishment". What's the difference in the crime? None. Whats the difference in the effect of a charge against the offender? Career over for the officer. This is based on the idea of an officer's integrity being unimpeachable. Clearly, in some cases, that is not the case. Riding a motorbike through the mess, torching objects various, sabotaging functions, these either are "character building" or are a discipline problem. Whether it was the block or the Mess should not be the deciding factor.
While for some, the issue of "RHIP" or "should have tried harder at school" is a convenient excuse; for certain others, the fact that they tried harder at school is exactly why they are NOT officers. Most of HMF's technical brains reside in the enlisted ranks rather than the commissioned ones, and the notion of "should have tried harder" is nonsensical.
I contend that there are more problems than simply the judicial system. In a world where it is commonplace for a junior officer to have less disposable income than a junior soldier/airman of equivalent experience/age, the idea of imposing "voluntary" fines on officers and making the OR tap the boards is both laughable and insulting.
Time for change.
Apologies, it was I who introduced the phrase "dreaded ECHR", but I can see that it has struck a chord.
Personally I don't buy it as a general explanation of what may have gone wrong.
Some of the critics of the ECHR's effect on the military justice system seem to be contradicting each other.
Has the ECHR's effect been to make the system insufficiently robust with offenders (as suggested in this thread), or has it made the system TOO robust with offenders, as claimed in the House of Commons debate about Sgt Nightingale?
Personally I don't buy it as a general explanation of what may have gone wrong.
Some of the critics of the ECHR's effect on the military justice system seem to be contradicting each other.
Has the ECHR's effect been to make the system insufficiently robust with offenders (as suggested in this thread), or has it made the system TOO robust with offenders, as claimed in the House of Commons debate about Sgt Nightingale?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Career over can also apply to certain airmen trades too. I once caught an RAF Policeman out in a lie. I passed the evidence to the duty RAFP SNCO. The following day OC Police asked if I wished the airman to be charged or allow a suitable in-house chastisement as a charge would lead to automatic expulsion from the RAFP.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
True enough, PN. It's the same for RMP staff too. Although they can be charged (eg an ND), reduction to the ranks or a charge involving dishonesty is normally career terminating.
Riding a motorbike through the mess, torching objects various, sabotaging functions
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not just the "Justice" system that's fundamentally broken.
20-something members of HMF cause damage to their accommodation on a regular basis. As already identified, to some extent this goes with the territory. That, I understand.
However, if the transgressor is a Pte/SAC, he's probably going to jail. If he's a Fg Offr/Lt, he's probably looking at "non-judicial punishment". What's the difference in the crime? None. Whats the difference in the effect of a charge against the offender? Career over for the officer. This is based on the idea of an officer's integrity being unimpeachable. Clearly, in some cases, that is not the case. Riding a motorbike through the mess, torching objects various, sabotaging functions, these either are "character building" or are a discipline problem. Whether it was the block or the Mess should not be the deciding factor.
While for some, the issue of "RHIP" or "should have tried harder at school" is a convenient excuse; for certain others, the fact that they tried harder at school is exactly why they are NOT officers. Most of HMF's technical brains reside in the enlisted ranks rather than the commissioned ones, and the notion of "should have tried harder" is nonsensical.
I contend that there are more problems than simply the judicial system. In a world where it is commonplace for a junior officer to have less disposable income than a junior soldier/airman of equivalent experience/age, the idea of imposing "voluntary" fines on officers and making the OR tap the boards is both laughable and insulting.
Time for change.
20-something members of HMF cause damage to their accommodation on a regular basis. As already identified, to some extent this goes with the territory. That, I understand.
However, if the transgressor is a Pte/SAC, he's probably going to jail. If he's a Fg Offr/Lt, he's probably looking at "non-judicial punishment". What's the difference in the crime? None. Whats the difference in the effect of a charge against the offender? Career over for the officer. This is based on the idea of an officer's integrity being unimpeachable. Clearly, in some cases, that is not the case. Riding a motorbike through the mess, torching objects various, sabotaging functions, these either are "character building" or are a discipline problem. Whether it was the block or the Mess should not be the deciding factor.
While for some, the issue of "RHIP" or "should have tried harder at school" is a convenient excuse; for certain others, the fact that they tried harder at school is exactly why they are NOT officers. Most of HMF's technical brains reside in the enlisted ranks rather than the commissioned ones, and the notion of "should have tried harder" is nonsensical.
I contend that there are more problems than simply the judicial system. In a world where it is commonplace for a junior officer to have less disposable income than a junior soldier/airman of equivalent experience/age, the idea of imposing "voluntary" fines on officers and making the OR tap the boards is both laughable and insulting.
Time for change.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,095
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easy Street
I suspect he is referring to CO19.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: UK
Age: 42
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baffman,
I can only speak from my experience, but I would say that the ECoHR in it's quest for a fair trial has changed the Court Martial system significantly. The armed forces are now subject to more scrutiny and governed by the same laws as the rest of the population. The lenient Court Martial's during the 70's and 80's during Operation Banner for murder and manslaughter, would simply not happen today. Welcoming back in to service of men convicted of manslaughter and murder - a Freedom of Information request to Ministry of Defence - WhatDoTheyKnow I cannot see the public finding that acceptable in this day and age.
I think Danny Nightingales Court Martial shows that some of the public would expect more lenient sentences for our armed forces because of the high esteem they are held in, and the high pressure and tempo of service life.
With regard to summary hearings Baffman, I know you have read The full report by Major McLeod entitled "Army abuses of power echoes of Deepcut." The recommendations of which can be found here.
http://www.publications.parliament.u...ce/service.pdf
He states summary hearings are not a fair trial, and Bale Baleiwai has set a prescient. He originally pled guilty, but at his recent trial de nova (trial granted in exceptional circumstances) he was found not guilty by a judge. This calls into question why the service got it wrong in the first place. I know that at least 1 Commanding Officer (now retired) has authorised the editing of police interview tapes, how many others are there?
What happens to the sailors, soldiers and airmen in the latest tranche of redundancies with summary hearing convictions? Most will not know they even have these convictions, and if they are unfortunate enough to choose a new career that need a clean CRB. They will be left stitched up by a flawed system, a MoD to stubborn to admit to making mistakes and a government that does not care about those who serve in our Armed Forces.
There are 3 million CRB checks carried out every year. I for one would not like to see a single summary hearing conviction recorded on any of them until the system is sorted out.
I can only speak from my experience, but I would say that the ECoHR in it's quest for a fair trial has changed the Court Martial system significantly. The armed forces are now subject to more scrutiny and governed by the same laws as the rest of the population. The lenient Court Martial's during the 70's and 80's during Operation Banner for murder and manslaughter, would simply not happen today. Welcoming back in to service of men convicted of manslaughter and murder - a Freedom of Information request to Ministry of Defence - WhatDoTheyKnow I cannot see the public finding that acceptable in this day and age.
I think Danny Nightingales Court Martial shows that some of the public would expect more lenient sentences for our armed forces because of the high esteem they are held in, and the high pressure and tempo of service life.
With regard to summary hearings Baffman, I know you have read The full report by Major McLeod entitled "Army abuses of power echoes of Deepcut." The recommendations of which can be found here.
http://www.publications.parliament.u...ce/service.pdf
He states summary hearings are not a fair trial, and Bale Baleiwai has set a prescient. He originally pled guilty, but at his recent trial de nova (trial granted in exceptional circumstances) he was found not guilty by a judge. This calls into question why the service got it wrong in the first place. I know that at least 1 Commanding Officer (now retired) has authorised the editing of police interview tapes, how many others are there?
What happens to the sailors, soldiers and airmen in the latest tranche of redundancies with summary hearing convictions? Most will not know they even have these convictions, and if they are unfortunate enough to choose a new career that need a clean CRB. They will be left stitched up by a flawed system, a MoD to stubborn to admit to making mistakes and a government that does not care about those who serve in our Armed Forces.
There are 3 million CRB checks carried out every year. I for one would not like to see a single summary hearing conviction recorded on any of them until the system is sorted out.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South of England
Age: 74
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Used to be Clk (Typ).
I know; we had a Clk (Typ), attached to 2 Sqn RAF Regt, at RAFDet Salalah in 197x.
I gave him a manuscript which included the phrase "the landline network from the aerial farm".
It came back beautifully typed as "the lunchtime network from the animal farm".
Apologies for thread drift, flippancy and annoying ex-Clk (Typ)s.
Rgds SOS
P.S. He followed the rules and always wore puttees when typing.
I know; we had a Clk (Typ), attached to 2 Sqn RAF Regt, at RAFDet Salalah in 197x.
I gave him a manuscript which included the phrase "the landline network from the aerial farm".
It came back beautifully typed as "the lunchtime network from the animal farm".
Apologies for thread drift, flippancy and annoying ex-Clk (Typ)s.
Rgds SOS
P.S. He followed the rules and always wore puttees when typing.
parabellum,
I think it entirely reasonable to compare the weapon discipline expected of a high-readiness police firearms unit like CO19 with that of UKSF. The fact that UKSF have other facets besides weapons is irrelevant - are you suggesting that they should be held to lower standards of behaviour as a result? No one in the armed forces, not even UKSF or a fast jet pilot :-) is above the law.
I think it entirely reasonable to compare the weapon discipline expected of a high-readiness police firearms unit like CO19 with that of UKSF. The fact that UKSF have other facets besides weapons is irrelevant - are you suggesting that they should be held to lower standards of behaviour as a result? No one in the armed forces, not even UKSF or a fast jet pilot :-) is above the law.
I can only speak from my experience, but I would say that the ECoHR in it's quest for a fair trial has changed the Court Martial system significantly. The armed forces are now subject to more scrutiny and governed by the same laws as the rest of the population. The lenient Court Martial's during the 70's and 80's during Operation Banner for murder and manslaughter, would simply not happen today...
Another poster, admittedly posting from the U.S.A. but presumably ex-RAF, holds the completely opposite view that discipline under ECHR is insufficiently robust:
Thank goodness the average soldier isn't some testosterone laden adolescent, hell bent on a good night out with the assistance of many pints of beer, otherwise you might need a more robust system of discipline to keep them in check. Luckily the lads today finish needlework classes early to go and help old people cross the road (before getting an early night), they are the ones who need protecting from the injustices of brutish Army discipline. Thank God for the ECHR, hopefully they will also demand a complete ban on those nasty, shouty Sergeant-Major types as well.
With regard to summary hearings Baffman, I know you have read The full report by Major McLeod entitled "Army abuses of power echoes of Deepcut." The recommendations of which can be found here.
http://www.publications.parliament.u...ce/service.pdf
He states summary hearings are not a fair trial ...
http://www.publications.parliament.u...ce/service.pdf
He states summary hearings are not a fair trial ...
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,095
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it entirely reasonable to compare the weapon discipline expected of a
high-readiness police firearms unit like CO19 with that of UKSF. The fact that
UKSF have other facets besides weapons is irrelevant
are you suggesting that they should be held to lower standards of
behaviour as a result?
behaviour as a result?
No, but the idea that one size fits all isn't, in my opinion, practical. It would not surprise me to learn that most, if not all, CO19 members were licensed firearms holders and able to keep some weapons in their home.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: UK
Age: 42
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regard to Two’s in’s comments:-
Thank goodness the average soldier isn't some testosterone laden adolescent, hell bent on a good night out with the assistance of many pints of beer, otherwise you might need a more robust system of discipline to keep them in check. Luckily the lads today finish needlework classes early to go and help old people cross the road (before getting an early night), they are the ones who need protecting from the injustices of brutish Army discipline. Thank God for the ECHR, hopefully they will also demand a complete ban on those nasty, shouty Sergeant-Major types as well.
I would like to point out that the ECoHR and the right to a fair trial should not make the blindest bit of difference to discipline.
Discipline -the practice or methods of teaching and enforcing acceptable patterns of behaviour.
Crime -an action prohibited by law or a failure to act as required by law.
The Commanding Officer’s job is to ensure discipline, if there is no discipline there is just a disorganised rabble. Few would argue the CO’s discretion of how he chooses to discipline those he commands. However if the CO is to conduct criminal proceedings that are subject to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (With criminal records and consequences like Foreign and Commonwealth Soldiers threatened with deportation, and that follow an individual for the rest of their life) then there absolutely must be a fair trial. It is disproportional and discriminative to use the findings of a summary hearing which by its own definition deals with discipline. Summary hearings are not a fair and just process, they are designed for discipline and involve someone being reprimanded in an office, and the sailor, soldier or Airman taking it ‘on the chin’ and accepting the punishment.
The Summary hearing conviction rate is 90% (court martial is 50%). A CO is not a legally trained judge and there is irreconcilable conflict of interest. They are acting in the role of prosecutor, judge and disciplinarian. There are only two ways I can see forward. One is that every case brought up before a CO has to be a completely fair trial which is not conducive to good disincline. Therefore you have to remove the link between a criminal conviction and a service offence (much like before AFA 2006, and whatever indiscipline you may have been guilty of in the RAF will not follow you on your exit).
Returning to Danny Nightingale, he was subject in a court martial to an extremely inflexible law that no matter how mitigating the circumstances, carries a minimum sentence. Perhaps in the rush to align the Armed Forces justice system with the civilian justice system things have been overlooked.
Baffman, what a shame it was not discussed before the implementations of AFA 11. Unfortunately, the MoD are more intent on covering everything up than fixing the underlying issues, but it is such an important debate to have, which is why I am bringing it to PPRuNe
Thank goodness the average soldier isn't some testosterone laden adolescent, hell bent on a good night out with the assistance of many pints of beer, otherwise you might need a more robust system of discipline to keep them in check. Luckily the lads today finish needlework classes early to go and help old people cross the road (before getting an early night), they are the ones who need protecting from the injustices of brutish Army discipline. Thank God for the ECHR, hopefully they will also demand a complete ban on those nasty, shouty Sergeant-Major types as well.
I would like to point out that the ECoHR and the right to a fair trial should not make the blindest bit of difference to discipline.
Discipline -the practice or methods of teaching and enforcing acceptable patterns of behaviour.
Crime -an action prohibited by law or a failure to act as required by law.
The Commanding Officer’s job is to ensure discipline, if there is no discipline there is just a disorganised rabble. Few would argue the CO’s discretion of how he chooses to discipline those he commands. However if the CO is to conduct criminal proceedings that are subject to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (With criminal records and consequences like Foreign and Commonwealth Soldiers threatened with deportation, and that follow an individual for the rest of their life) then there absolutely must be a fair trial. It is disproportional and discriminative to use the findings of a summary hearing which by its own definition deals with discipline. Summary hearings are not a fair and just process, they are designed for discipline and involve someone being reprimanded in an office, and the sailor, soldier or Airman taking it ‘on the chin’ and accepting the punishment.
The Summary hearing conviction rate is 90% (court martial is 50%). A CO is not a legally trained judge and there is irreconcilable conflict of interest. They are acting in the role of prosecutor, judge and disciplinarian. There are only two ways I can see forward. One is that every case brought up before a CO has to be a completely fair trial which is not conducive to good disincline. Therefore you have to remove the link between a criminal conviction and a service offence (much like before AFA 2006, and whatever indiscipline you may have been guilty of in the RAF will not follow you on your exit).
Returning to Danny Nightingale, he was subject in a court martial to an extremely inflexible law that no matter how mitigating the circumstances, carries a minimum sentence. Perhaps in the rush to align the Armed Forces justice system with the civilian justice system things have been overlooked.
Baffman, what a shame it was not discussed before the implementations of AFA 11. Unfortunately, the MoD are more intent on covering everything up than fixing the underlying issues, but it is such an important debate to have, which is why I am bringing it to PPRuNe
Related media coverage has been continuing, especially in The Times.
There is a parliamentary debate on the Service Justice System this Thursday (31 Jan) secured by Madeleine Moon MP and Duncan Hames MP.
There is a parliamentary debate on the Service Justice System this Thursday (31 Jan) secured by Madeleine Moon MP and Duncan Hames MP.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
A CO is not a legally trained judge and there is irreconcilable conflict of interest. They are acting in the role of prosecutor, judge and disciplinarian. There are only two ways I can see forward. One is that every case brought up before a CO has to be a completely fair trial which is not conducive to good disincline
I would have had words with her, which I did after I duly found her guilty and fined. Handbrake house allowed me no discretion, ie guilty as charged, and fined the cost of a B&B at a local hotel. Hypocritical?
That conviction will no doubt still be on file 20 years later.
As a civilian, may I ask a question?
At disciplinary hearings we (civilians) are (theoretically) permitted representation by Trades Union or simply a mate (similar to the McKenzie Friend concept). Are you given this right in the Services?
I ask because our MoD bosses have on numerous occasions ruled that this "right" does not exist if the hearing is presided over by a serving officer. Our Unions rolled over the first time this was raised at PUS level.
In general terms, the civilian world in MoD suffers the same problems discussed here. In our case, it is not just the "CO" who is allowed to be judge and jury, often in his own case. Until about 2003 it was everyone in your line management chain. However, the rule changed and your immediate line manager is (again, theoretically) no longer permitted to act in this way.
A minefield!
At disciplinary hearings we (civilians) are (theoretically) permitted representation by Trades Union or simply a mate (similar to the McKenzie Friend concept). Are you given this right in the Services?
I ask because our MoD bosses have on numerous occasions ruled that this "right" does not exist if the hearing is presided over by a serving officer. Our Unions rolled over the first time this was raised at PUS level.
In general terms, the civilian world in MoD suffers the same problems discussed here. In our case, it is not just the "CO" who is allowed to be judge and jury, often in his own case. Until about 2003 it was everyone in your line management chain. However, the rule changed and your immediate line manager is (again, theoretically) no longer permitted to act in this way.
A minefield!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
This might be of interest ... on the back of "wishing" to improve the internal legal capability of the RAF, the service has been looking to recruit both Lawyers and Barristers ... as per the advert below.
I have considerable experience dealing with the legal profession and I'm afraid you're not going to get the caliber of individual required at this kind of money ... even for someone newly qualified.
Coff.
I have considerable experience dealing with the legal profession and I'm afraid you're not going to get the caliber of individual required at this kind of money ... even for someone newly qualified.
Coff.