Voyager Plummets (Merged)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I know in the U.S. these terms differ for officers and enlisted and even among the services. And the media always seems to get it messed up anyway.
I was under the impression that the sentence included a 'Dismissal without Disgrace' as described here:
3.2 Dismissal and Dismissal with Disgrace from Her Majesty’s Service
3.2.1 Dismissal is a sentence imposed by a court; discharge is an administrative action resulting in the ending of employment. Although the effects may appear similar, there are significant differences. Dismissal either with or without disgrace can have far-reaching consequences on an ex-Service person in civilian life. The primary consideration for the Court Martial is whether the offence is serious enough that the offender should be dismissed as a sentence [s 265(1)]. In R v Downing18 Judge LCJ said:
“The question whether the criminal activities of a member of the military require dismissal from the Service is pre-eminently, although not exclusively, a decision for the Court Martial. For this purpose, for the assessment of the impact of the applicant’s convictions on his ability to continue to serve in the relevant force, the Court Martial must be regarded as an expert tribunal, entitled to the same level of respect to which any such tribunal is entitled when an appeal court is considering its decision.”
It is, therefore, well established that dismissal should not be imposed as a matter of mere expediency. It would be wrong in principle to dismiss purely because the offender is, for some extraneous reason, not fitted for Service life, or states that he does not wish to remain in the Service. In those circumstances administrative discharge may be appropriate, and that is not a matter within the power of the court. Dismissal can be awarded with or without either imprisonment or detention, and in combination with any other punishment. Dismissal and dismissal with disgrace remains on an offender’s record for 12 months from the date of sentence before becoming spent; (6 months for offenders sentenced when under 18 years old).
3.2.3 An offender who is dismissed from the Service must also be reduced to the ranks [s 295(4)] (except in the case of a commissioned officer, whose commission is forfeit) and has no right to a resettlement course or terminal leave. There is inevitably a financial effect on the offender of losing his job, and added effects, which may be more significant, if he has not yet qualified for a pension in immediate payment (see para 3.3 below).
3.2.1 Dismissal is a sentence imposed by a court; discharge is an administrative action resulting in the ending of employment. Although the effects may appear similar, there are significant differences. Dismissal either with or without disgrace can have far-reaching consequences on an ex-Service person in civilian life. The primary consideration for the Court Martial is whether the offence is serious enough that the offender should be dismissed as a sentence [s 265(1)]. In R v Downing18 Judge LCJ said:
“The question whether the criminal activities of a member of the military require dismissal from the Service is pre-eminently, although not exclusively, a decision for the Court Martial. For this purpose, for the assessment of the impact of the applicant’s convictions on his ability to continue to serve in the relevant force, the Court Martial must be regarded as an expert tribunal, entitled to the same level of respect to which any such tribunal is entitled when an appeal court is considering its decision.”
It is, therefore, well established that dismissal should not be imposed as a matter of mere expediency. It would be wrong in principle to dismiss purely because the offender is, for some extraneous reason, not fitted for Service life, or states that he does not wish to remain in the Service. In those circumstances administrative discharge may be appropriate, and that is not a matter within the power of the court. Dismissal can be awarded with or without either imprisonment or detention, and in combination with any other punishment. Dismissal and dismissal with disgrace remains on an offender’s record for 12 months from the date of sentence before becoming spent; (6 months for offenders sentenced when under 18 years old).
3.2.3 An offender who is dismissed from the Service must also be reduced to the ranks [s 295(4)] (except in the case of a commissioned officer, whose commission is forfeit) and has no right to a resettlement course or terminal leave. There is inevitably a financial effect on the offender of losing his job, and added effects, which may be more significant, if he has not yet qualified for a pension in immediate payment (see para 3.3 below).
Airbubba, I used the colloquial "dishonourable discharge" to emphasise the effect of the criminal conviction of a suspended prison sentence that went with it. I'm not a lawyer, and Military Law seems to have changed its terminology in the same way as everything else since I served. Whether his dismissal was with or without disgrace I don't know. Can you be without disgrace with a suspended prison sentence?
The fact that this officer was tried by Court Martial at all is a bad signal for all UK military aircrew, when past precedent would have seen him dealt with summarily (by his AOC or CinC?), perhaps fined, lose seniority, but be retained in the Service. If the RAF thought him to have lied to it, then it would seem that it was greatly in error. If he was tried because of the costs that he caused then, as has been pointed out, causing the total loss of an F35 will be a very serious offence, no matter the details. If he was tried to assuage inter-Service politics then that is a comment on the RAF leadership rather than of him. Or perhaps there was another reason?
The fact that this officer was tried by Court Martial at all is a bad signal for all UK military aircrew, when past precedent would have seen him dealt with summarily (by his AOC or CinC?), perhaps fined, lose seniority, but be retained in the Service. If the RAF thought him to have lied to it, then it would seem that it was greatly in error. If he was tried because of the costs that he caused then, as has been pointed out, causing the total loss of an F35 will be a very serious offence, no matter the details. If he was tried to assuage inter-Service politics then that is a comment on the RAF leadership rather than of him. Or perhaps there was another reason?
Chugalug2, #919. As you say, 
Again I would not disagree that the core of the discussion relates to a default retributive culture and the apparent excessive sentence. However in order to understand this, clarify the arguments, and fairly conclude, I strongly believe that it is necessary to consider alternative viewpoints and understand as able the background theories - even if they their academic origin is not in keeping with (mil) aviation practice.
Another reference below indicates that we are our own worst enemy (including me).
Look beyond the title and academic presentation; consider the role and behaviour of organisational leadership, teams, and individuals.
I do not contribute to the particular blog, nor like the academic approach, but occasionally alternative views shake up the grey cells, which in this case would agree with your conclusions, but perhaps with alternative evidence and understanding.
"... many teams struggle to admit mistakes and bring up challenging and often disconfirming information. While people loathe appearing ignorant, incompetent, intrusive and negative, the very nature of hierarchy within organisations makes it difficult to speak up. Typically, lower status members will feel less safe than higher status members in taking interpersonal risks and voicing concerns. Additionally, leaders who seek confirmation of their own ideas, unwittingly inhibit voice in lower status members of the group. Thus, the pervasive effects of status and power (particularly on subordinates) mixed with an individual’s inherent sense of self-preservation heighten the interpersonal risks of speaking up."
http://www.safetydifferently.com/mak...ogical-safety/. 4th para onwards.
There may be more benefit in encouraging the organisation and leadership to consider alternative views opposed to just blaming them, even though it is self satisfying.
P. S. on reflection there is a need for an aviation practice version of the above; perhaps this is the basis of the thread; but would the organisation management and leaders read, understand, ...
Again I would not disagree that the core of the discussion relates to a default retributive culture and the apparent excessive sentence. However in order to understand this, clarify the arguments, and fairly conclude, I strongly believe that it is necessary to consider alternative viewpoints and understand as able the background theories - even if they their academic origin is not in keeping with (mil) aviation practice.
Another reference below indicates that we are our own worst enemy (including me).
Look beyond the title and academic presentation; consider the role and behaviour of organisational leadership, teams, and individuals.
I do not contribute to the particular blog, nor like the academic approach, but occasionally alternative views shake up the grey cells, which in this case would agree with your conclusions, but perhaps with alternative evidence and understanding.
"... many teams struggle to admit mistakes and bring up challenging and often disconfirming information. While people loathe appearing ignorant, incompetent, intrusive and negative, the very nature of hierarchy within organisations makes it difficult to speak up. Typically, lower status members will feel less safe than higher status members in taking interpersonal risks and voicing concerns. Additionally, leaders who seek confirmation of their own ideas, unwittingly inhibit voice in lower status members of the group. Thus, the pervasive effects of status and power (particularly on subordinates) mixed with an individual’s inherent sense of self-preservation heighten the interpersonal risks of speaking up."
http://www.safetydifferently.com/mak...ogical-safety/. 4th para onwards.
There may be more benefit in encouraging the organisation and leadership to consider alternative views opposed to just blaming them, even though it is self satisfying.
P. S. on reflection there is a need for an aviation practice version of the above; perhaps this is the basis of the thread; but would the organisation management and leaders read, understand, ...
Chug,
Re your #924, the system has changed markedly in this century. Your much-distrusted VSOs have no part to play in decisions to prosecute or otherwise; that decision belongs to the Service Prosecuting Authority (tri-Service) which runs on civilian lines and means there has to be a realistic prospect of a conviction for a trial to take place on any charge. Given that charges were beyond the scope of summary disposal (AOC etc) the only route would have been CM.
As the website makes clear, the SPA is totally independent of the relevant Service chain of command. It was the SPA that selected the charges that were heard at the CM, not the RAF, and it would have nothing to do with potential cost of an act by the individual or with inter-Service politics. Lawyers at the SPA would have reviewed the evidence presented to them and decided there was a case to answer on charges X,Y and Z, and the (civilian) head of the SPA would have to agree. That is the only reason for prosecuting anyone.
The fact that the individual was acquitted of the more serious charges does, not mean the decision to prosecute was wrong per se, just that the case as perceived by SPA was not proven to the satisfaction of the JA and CM members, and therefore he was quite rightly declared innocent. That is the UK justice system at work, and the same thing happens daily in courts across the country.
Re your #924, the system has changed markedly in this century. Your much-distrusted VSOs have no part to play in decisions to prosecute or otherwise; that decision belongs to the Service Prosecuting Authority (tri-Service) which runs on civilian lines and means there has to be a realistic prospect of a conviction for a trial to take place on any charge. Given that charges were beyond the scope of summary disposal (AOC etc) the only route would have been CM.
As the website makes clear, the SPA is totally independent of the relevant Service chain of command. It was the SPA that selected the charges that were heard at the CM, not the RAF, and it would have nothing to do with potential cost of an act by the individual or with inter-Service politics. Lawyers at the SPA would have reviewed the evidence presented to them and decided there was a case to answer on charges X,Y and Z, and the (civilian) head of the SPA would have to agree. That is the only reason for prosecuting anyone.
The fact that the individual was acquitted of the more serious charges does, not mean the decision to prosecute was wrong per se, just that the case as perceived by SPA was not proven to the satisfaction of the JA and CM members, and therefore he was quite rightly declared innocent. That is the UK justice system at work, and the same thing happens daily in courts across the country.
Fortisimo, thank you for telling us about the SPA, whose website indeed proudly states its "independence" in its very web address:-
Service Prosecuting Authority
Some might feel a certain reassurance from that, but others might query the need to emphasise it so. Perhaps it is because it is part of the MOD; like the MAA, like the MilAAIB, like the IFS, all of which have had their "independence" questioned if not clearly demonstrated to be but a fig leaf. In my time RAF Flight Safety was proudly stated to be independent of the RAF CoC. So it well might have been, but the IFS was just another part of the MOD, its dire warnings of lack of airworthiness among many air fleets (the ARTs) could be and were indeed buried, and the various forecasts in them accelerated by the illegal acts of certain RAF VSOs set to plunder the hitherto ring fenced Air Safety budgets. They succeeded, by issuing illegal orders to suborn the regs, persecuting and dismissing those who would not comply, and by pulping the regs lest they be quoted. They got hold of the money, and UK Military Air Safety took such a hit that it is still reeling from it.
Evidence and testimony of this has been presented to the RAF Provost Marshal and the Thames Valley Police. Neither have acted upon it. Neither the SPA nor its Service predecessors have either. If the SPA were really the true representation of the Statue of Justice that stands atop the Old Bailey, it would surely weigh all the evidence and consider the acts of RAF VSOs in the late 80s/ early 90s. That would bring light to bear on the many UK Military Airworthiness Related Fatal Air Accidents suffered since, on the findings, naming, and verdicts against JOs and SOs since, and of the continuing cover up of those RAF VSO acts since. It doesn't though, and so becomes part of that MOD cover up, and another obstruction to the urgently needed reform of UK Military Air Safety.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servic...ting_Authority
Service Prosecuting Authority
Some might feel a certain reassurance from that, but others might query the need to emphasise it so. Perhaps it is because it is part of the MOD; like the MAA, like the MilAAIB, like the IFS, all of which have had their "independence" questioned if not clearly demonstrated to be but a fig leaf. In my time RAF Flight Safety was proudly stated to be independent of the RAF CoC. So it well might have been, but the IFS was just another part of the MOD, its dire warnings of lack of airworthiness among many air fleets (the ARTs) could be and were indeed buried, and the various forecasts in them accelerated by the illegal acts of certain RAF VSOs set to plunder the hitherto ring fenced Air Safety budgets. They succeeded, by issuing illegal orders to suborn the regs, persecuting and dismissing those who would not comply, and by pulping the regs lest they be quoted. They got hold of the money, and UK Military Air Safety took such a hit that it is still reeling from it.
Evidence and testimony of this has been presented to the RAF Provost Marshal and the Thames Valley Police. Neither have acted upon it. Neither the SPA nor its Service predecessors have either. If the SPA were really the true representation of the Statue of Justice that stands atop the Old Bailey, it would surely weigh all the evidence and consider the acts of RAF VSOs in the late 80s/ early 90s. That would bring light to bear on the many UK Military Airworthiness Related Fatal Air Accidents suffered since, on the findings, naming, and verdicts against JOs and SOs since, and of the continuing cover up of those RAF VSO acts since. It doesn't though, and so becomes part of that MOD cover up, and another obstruction to the urgently needed reform of UK Military Air Safety.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servic...ting_Authority
Last edited by Chugalug2; 11th Mar 2017 at 09:02.
The fact that this officer was tried by Court Martial at all is a bad signal for all UK military aircrew, when past precedent would have seen him dealt with summarily (by his AOC or CinC?),
A far less serious incident than the one we are discussing, but nevertheless it still went to court martial, not dealt with by C in C AFME. He was reprimanded and lost a year's seniority, certainly something the C in C could have done, and the general opinion was it had all been a bit of overreaction to a simple error of judgement.
An interesting case, TTN. Was he charged with, and convicted of, negligently carrying out his duties as in this case? What is the more negligent action if so, striking and damaging two aircraft in a taxiing accident or placing one's camera on a side shelf and subsequently motoring your seat forward? We are told that the resultant costs are not an issue, and that inter-Service politics (ie enraged Colonels demanding that a severe example be set for the danger and injury their personnel were exposed to) are not either. So it is the action that precedes the accident that is all important. You imply that the offence in this case is more serious than the offence in yours. I'm not sure that it is.
At this distance (51 years 
) I cant remember the actual charge. I wonder if he pleaded not guilty on the grounds of the incorrect line painting etc, and refused to accept it being dealt with by the C in C , determined to have his day in court. I think the results in the Voyager case were certainly more serious, but whether the captain's actions were more blameworthy than the Argosy chap is open to argument.
I frequently had to peer out of my little window of the Victor, and give my captain a "clear starboard" when taxying, and often thought of that Argosy when I was doing it!
) I cant remember the actual charge. I wonder if he pleaded not guilty on the grounds of the incorrect line painting etc, and refused to accept it being dealt with by the C in C , determined to have his day in court. I think the results in the Voyager case were certainly more serious, but whether the captain's actions were more blameworthy than the Argosy chap is open to argument.I frequently had to peer out of my little window of the Victor, and give my captain a "clear starboard" when taxying, and often thought of that Argosy when I was doing it!
I cannot think of any aircraft accident CMs in my time of surviving aircrew, but no doubt there have been some. JTO's list gives an idea of the usual default treatment. This accident has a flavour of Mull, that the captain was going to be made an example of for what in retrospect seems to have been more accidental than negligent. He pleaded guilty to the latter though so clearly expected punishment. I'm not sure that he expected this one. I certainly didn't!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
In a comparison, running a war canoe into the ground seems invariably to end in a CM, a Rep or Severe Rep, loss of seniority, dismal from ship etc.
In this case is the system breaking entirely new ground.
In this case is the system breaking entirely new ground.
airpolice
An interesting tale that rings true. (And anything that wastes MoD money is relevant to a forum where many complaints are about lack of funding).
In 1993 I started a new job on helicopters and inherited a raft of correspondence from Bill Paying Branch in Liverpool. Long story short, there was an apparent shortfall on an RN sonics contract and could they please have another £1.5M to pay it off, as the company were claiming the contract had been completed 2 years previously. Drove up to Wolverhampton to pay a visit, sniffed round their workshop and uncovered about 20% of the kit they had allegedly upgraded and delivered lying in a corner. (That shocked them, that an MoD project manager actually recognised the kit). Further investigation showed we'd been double-charged on about 40 items, and even triple-charged on a few. Auditors went in, but came down on the side of incompetence, despite serial lying, false record keeping, falsified delivery advice notes and more. My Director was furious as it was clear fraud, and we'd been getting rocks from the RN about shortage of kit and delayed contracts. Company had to issue credit notes, to be offset against next contract. (Why think about giving them another?) Point being, MoD doesn't have too many specialists to investigate such things, and finds it easier to roll over.
An interesting tale that rings true. (And anything that wastes MoD money is relevant to a forum where many complaints are about lack of funding).
In 1993 I started a new job on helicopters and inherited a raft of correspondence from Bill Paying Branch in Liverpool. Long story short, there was an apparent shortfall on an RN sonics contract and could they please have another £1.5M to pay it off, as the company were claiming the contract had been completed 2 years previously. Drove up to Wolverhampton to pay a visit, sniffed round their workshop and uncovered about 20% of the kit they had allegedly upgraded and delivered lying in a corner. (That shocked them, that an MoD project manager actually recognised the kit). Further investigation showed we'd been double-charged on about 40 items, and even triple-charged on a few. Auditors went in, but came down on the side of incompetence, despite serial lying, false record keeping, falsified delivery advice notes and more. My Director was furious as it was clear fraud, and we'd been getting rocks from the RN about shortage of kit and delayed contracts. Company had to issue credit notes, to be offset against next contract. (Why think about giving them another?) Point being, MoD doesn't have too many specialists to investigate such things, and finds it easier to roll over.
In a comparison, running a war canoe into the ground seems invariably to end in a CM, a Rep or Severe Rep, loss of seniority, dismal from ship etc.
In this case is the system breaking entirely new ground.
In this case is the system breaking entirely new ground.
Another case I remember was a Twin Pin pilot at Seletar who suddenly lost both engines at low level over the South China Sea and rapidly found himself in the oggin. The board decided he had cocked up his fuel switches and it was decided to court martial him (again possibly because he refused to accept summary punishment from the C in C). He engaged a clever civvy lawyer who managed to convince the court that there was a possible (but highly unlikely) technical fault which could result in simultaneous engine failures, and he was found not guilty, probably on the direction of the JAG bloke.
Everyone knew the guy had cocked up, and he as good as admitted it towards the end of the celebratory p**s up in the bar afterwards. The fact that he had dived into the sinking aircraft and rescued his nav who had got trapped went a long way to everyone thinking that it was a good result all round.
TTN, loved your story about the Twin Pin. Going totally off-thread, I was reminded of what they used to say about the Pioneer family - you were actually safer in a (single) Pin, because with either aircraft, the loss of a single engine invariably resulted in a rapid termination of flight, and it was twice as likely in a Twin. (Perhaps that could have been part of your gent's defence?)
And that makes me think.... what has happened to the beautiful Primrose, at Mike Collett's late-lamented Classic Air Force at Coventry? I had the great pleasure of flying in her a few years ago, and much enjoyed the roar of two serviceable Alvis Leonideses as she went sideways in a stiffish crosswind....
Sorry, daydreaming....
And that makes me think.... what has happened to the beautiful Primrose, at Mike Collett's late-lamented Classic Air Force at Coventry? I had the great pleasure of flying in her a few years ago, and much enjoyed the roar of two serviceable Alvis Leonideses as she went sideways in a stiffish crosswind....
Sorry, daydreaming....
TTN:-
I wonder if that was Dato David Marshall? While on 48 Sqn 1963/66 at Changi as a Hastings co-pilot, my secondary duty was deputy squadron adjutant, to stand in for the WO adj who also ran the football team and hence was often "away". Among the many filing duties, etc, was the need to draw up lists for officers to attend CMs as officers under instruction. If I remember rightly you had to score three of these and could then be nominated to be a Board Member yourself. With that unenviable outlook, many and varied were the excuses given to be excluded from such lists.
Then an upcoming murder trial was announced! The arrangement between the British and Singapore governments was that all crime committed on British bases, that only involved British Servicemen/women and was not covered by the Singapore RTA, would be dealt with by Service courts, including it seems murder! This case involved members of the Sergeants Mess, one of whom died in rather gruesome manner in a Married Quarter. After investigation by RAFP, charges were made and a trial date set.
The first I knew of all this was a week when I was required to man the Orderly Room and told to draw up the usual lists for each day of the trial. It turned out to be a doddle! Rather than being inundated with excuses, my clients were trying to subvert the process by begging to be listed for every day! Other hopefuls lingered around outside hoping for last minute cancellations.
The big pull was the drama being enacted on a daily basis in the court. The defence counsel was Dato David Marshal, a renowned local lawyer and politician. He ran rings around the prosecution witnesses, particularly the RAFP who had been proceeding in an easterly direction, etc, only to end up contradicting themselves under his cross-examination. To cut the story short, what seemed at first to be an open and shut case ended with a verdict of Not Guilty to the murder charge, but Guilty of manslaughter. On appeal this latter verdict was quashed and our man went free without a stain on his character. The really galling thing about all this was that I wasn't allowed to list myself and hence learned about all this third hand!
He engaged a clever civvy lawyer
Then an upcoming murder trial was announced! The arrangement between the British and Singapore governments was that all crime committed on British bases, that only involved British Servicemen/women and was not covered by the Singapore RTA, would be dealt with by Service courts, including it seems murder! This case involved members of the Sergeants Mess, one of whom died in rather gruesome manner in a Married Quarter. After investigation by RAFP, charges were made and a trial date set.
The first I knew of all this was a week when I was required to man the Orderly Room and told to draw up the usual lists for each day of the trial. It turned out to be a doddle! Rather than being inundated with excuses, my clients were trying to subvert the process by begging to be listed for every day! Other hopefuls lingered around outside hoping for last minute cancellations.
The big pull was the drama being enacted on a daily basis in the court. The defence counsel was Dato David Marshal, a renowned local lawyer and politician. He ran rings around the prosecution witnesses, particularly the RAFP who had been proceeding in an easterly direction, etc, only to end up contradicting themselves under his cross-examination. To cut the story short, what seemed at first to be an open and shut case ended with a verdict of Not Guilty to the murder charge, but Guilty of manslaughter. On appeal this latter verdict was quashed and our man went free without a stain on his character. The really galling thing about all this was that I wasn't allowed to list myself and hence learned about all this third hand!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Chug, similarly a friend in Cyprus was tried for flying indiscipline and the court was packed each day with officers from the Lightning and Vulcan sqns. Remember most details, think he got a Rep, but the best was the defence barrister, a Gp Capt who ate the flt lt prosecutor!
I think you'll find it is 'Proceeding in an Orderly Fashion' - TTN
Unlike the numbering in this thread - presumably due to a "moderating" influence ....
Jack
Unlike the numbering in this thread - presumably due to a "moderating" influence ....
Jack