Ex RAF Officer found guilty of sex offences committed at Gatow

[NutLoose]

Courtney, as I understand it the military police don't have powers of arrest over civilians (even ex-military ones)

So in that vein, if they have no power of arrest over you, surely they have no power to detain or question you?

[Courtney Mil]

Hmm. Good answers, thank you. Do keep them coming because I think this is an interesting issue.

[Wrathmonk]

Further to JTO link to the new clauses in the AFA2006, and regarding the question of who can make an arrest....

Section 68(4)

Where a person may be charged (within the meaning of section 61(1)) with an offence only with the consent of the Attorney General (see section 61(2)), section 67(1) has effect in relation to the offence as if for the words from “in accordance with” to the end there were substituted “ by a service policeman ” (and as if section 67(2) to (5) were omitted).

For ease, the relevant sections are reproduced below:

Section 61(2)

"Where any of sections 55 to 58 prohibits the charging of a person with an offence, the person may be charged with the offence if the Attorney General consents."]Where any of sections 55 to 58 prohibits the charging of a person with an offence, the person may be charged with the offence if the Attorney General consents.

The 'amended' Section 67(1) would therefore read as

A person who is reasonably suspected of being engaged in committing, or of having committed, a service offence may be arrested by a service policeman.

So the way this non-legal bod reads into all that is if the Attorney General deems that a person can be charged with an offence under the Armed Forces Act, regardless of how long it is since that person was subject to military law, they can be arrested by a military policeman. By using the word 'person' I would make the assumption that this also includes those who were subject to Air Force Law (as was) due to their location and not the fact that they wore uniform (dependants, civilian staff etc).

[Roadster280]

I'd agree with that Wrathmonk. One did not have to serve in the RAF to be charged under the Air Force Act. As a soldier on an RAF stn, but tapping the boards in front of my Army OC (of our Army squadron), I was most surprised to hear the 252 had "Air Force Act" on it.

[Just This Once...]

Given the recent successful prosecution it does seem slightly inappropriate to debate the darker side of this, but the sweeping powers gained by the RAFP (and equivalents) has not been without pain. I joined an RAF where the RAFP pretty much turned into civilians when they went off camp, to the point of covering the police markings and blue lights on their vehicles. Much has changed and the interpretation of the new acts by the RAFP and the oversight (or lack of) is as important as the exact words of the act.

RAFP can use both regular and Service Law when pursuing a case. As Service Law regards what would be relatively trivial issues in civilian law as arrestable offences they have, in effect, become one of the most powerful police organisations out there.

As relatively trivial issues can trigger an arrest and that an arrest can lead to custody without interview and that in turn can lead to searches without a warrant we now, uniquely, have civilian owned houses occupied by civilian spouses being routinely turned over by RAFP investigating trivial issues. There is no judicial oversight of this process and the authorising level can be a flt lt directly out of police school. There is also no independent complaints body to even hold the RAFP to account. In effect by a combination of civilian and military powers they can now carry out acts that would not have been dreamt of just 10 years ago.

I am aware of a number of horrendous acts carried out against service families on private property on matters that could not be pursued by civilian law or civilian police. The civilians involved in these events appear to have less rights than spouses or partners of regular civilians.

We have lost a lot of liberty in the last few years; unfortunately this extends to our families too.

[Wrathmonk]

JTO

Like CivPol, all Military Police (including "MOD Plod") are subject to restrictions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I'm sure a specialist will be along soon and highlight what is required under PACE to arrest / detain / search etc.

I'm fairly certain they only have powers of arrest over individuals subject to the AFA (plus those no longer subject to it but whose arrest is authorised by the AG as highlghted above) and, even on MOD property (i.e trespass) can only detain "non-AFA persons" until CivPol arrive and take over.

Any journo's reading this thread will (hopefully) love your comments about

custody without interview and that in turn can lead to searches without a warrant ..... civilian owned houses occupied by civilian spouses being routinely turned over by RAFP investigating trivial issues

[Bigt]

I have been following this case for a while, as I served at Gatow and knew Graham as a `distant` work colleague. The reporting of the case has been fairly accurate but lacks some detail. As far as I know Graham attained the rank of Sgt and spent most of his RAF career working at various GCHQ outstations. The courts martial board was made up of 7 civilians employed by the MOD instead of the more usual serving officers. It may well be that case will develop as their is now an ongoing investigation into his activities after leaving the RAF

[Just This Once...]

Originally Posted by Wrathmonk

JTO

Like CivPol, all Military Police (including "MOD Plod") are subject to restrictions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I'm sure a specialist will be along soon and highlight what is required under PACE to arrest / detain / search etc.

Sorry, I did not mean to suggest that Mil Pol were not subject to PACE. The difference is that Mil Pol via Service Law has a very low bar as to what counts as an arrestable offence. Civilian police have exactly the same powers regarding custody and powers of search, but these only come in to play one they have good grounds to believe that an arrestable offence may have been committed. The seniority of those empowered to authorise a search without warrant is also a lot higher and all decisions can be scrutinised by the IPCC or a court.

In sum, the RAFP have the same powers under PACE but can use these in a manner never anticipated by the original law that governs civilian police.

[NutLoose]

The courts martial board was made up of 7 civilians employed by the MOD instead of the more usual serving officers.

I wonder how that works re military law etc, that and if any evidence in any case given is classified, I wonder if the "civilians" were ex service personnel, as that would get round that.

Just This Once, if correct those powers are disgusting, they should have to follow the law as per Civilian police when dealing with civilians at the very least.

[Wrathmonk]

NutLoose

Have a look here. I suspect the media (?) reporting the

courts martial board was made up of 7 civilians employed by the MOD

may be a bit scurrilous. According to the link there are 19 judges (if I've done my sums right!), all of which are civilians (although some, like the JAG, may be ex-mil). It may be that the 7 civilians on this CM were all judges....? Perhaps Bigt has more detail?

JTO

Thanks - and I agree that what constitutes a 'military offence' versus a 'civilian offence' is vastly different. After all the "bringing the Service into disrepute" pretty much covers anything and everything . On the level of authority required from the same link ....

F. Custody, Search Warrants and Arrest Warrants

If a serviceman or woman is to be detained in custody, or if private premises need to be searched in the course of investigations, or if a person needs to be arrested, the authority of a Judge Advocate is required. The JAG or one of the judges must be satisfied that the continued detention, or the search or arrest, is legally justified. Such cases are often heard by video link and a judge is on duty every day of the year to rule upon urgent applications if required.

[Just This Once...]

Thanks Wrathmonk and if it worked like that in practice then we would have oversight. If the police arrest first they gain additional powers to 'search without warrant'. Handily this avoids any requirement to see a judge or have any judicial oversight of what happens.

As I understand it the civilian police have to use search warrants more often as they usually do not have the evidence to proceed direct to arrest. As the grounds for arrest is so low in Service Law and is not subject to external scrutiny the RAFP can effectively bypass the judicial process by proceeding direct to arrest and then start the searches.

[Tankertrashnav]

As far as I know Graham attained the rank of Sgt...

If that's the case then this is yet another case where the media cannot distinguish between an NCO and an officer. I suppose it's too much to expect the BBC to employ anyone with even the vaguest knowledge of service rank structures - even their so-called defence correspondents display dismal ignorance of their supposed specialism.

Mind you, on a visit to RAF St Mawgan the other night I dined in the combined officers/sergeants mess, and the Station Duty "Officer" who I saw saluting the ensign as it was lowered at 1800 was a chief tech, so perhaps I shouldn't blame them too much!

[izod tester]

NCO - Non Commissioned Officer.

[TEEEJ]

Bigt wrote

As far as I know Graham attained the rank of Sgt

I remember him as a Chief Tech.

The Times snippet refers to him as a Chief Technician.

RAF officer abused children on base | The Times

[Tankertrashnav]

izod - funnily enough I do know what NCO stands for! Nevertheless in common parlance the term officer applies exclusively to commissioned officers. Warrant officers and non commissioned officers are always so designated.

[NutLoose]

TTN

It's the press, they see the words commissioned officer in NCO and it's blinkers on.... One would hate to think what they would make of a TAG of old, no doubt a Brigadier at the least.

[Al R]

Didn't the BBC coverage suggest he was 'intelligence' - non CT trade route anyway?

[The Oberon]

Al R


Analysts followed the technical rank structure, they even wore sparks badges, I don't know about other Int. types.

[Bigt]

Graham was either a Communications Systems Analyst (CSA) or a Communications Systems Analyst - Voice (CSA (V)......these were the new names for the trades of ROT - Radio Op Tel and ROV - Radio Op Voice. The titles changed in the late 1980s.....the trades were a `sub division of Trade Group 11 (siggies/comms.
As suggested earlier he may well of moved on to the dizzy heights of CT...

[izod tester]

TTN

I agree that within the military community the word "officer" is generally understood to be a commissioned officer. However, whether we like it or not, the media do not feel themselves to be constrained to take the same interpretation. They will generally write articles to have the greatest impact on their perceived audience and they often have little appreciation of the difference between commissioned, noncommissioned or warrant officers.

In any case, part of our military training and experience was the importance of giving unambiguous descriptions or instructions. If said description or instruction is capable of more than one interpretation then you should not be surprised if someone takes a different understanding to that which you intended.