Ex RAF Officer found guilty of sex offences committed at Gatow
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,819
Received 2,795 Likes
on
1,190 Posts
Ex RAF Officer found guilty of sex offences committed at Gatow
See
BBC News - Ex-RAF officer guilty of sex abuse
Is it odd that he was court martialled? I would have thought a civilian court would have dealt with it, though it was at an overseas RAF base ( Gatow)
BBC News - Ex-RAF officer guilty of sex abuse
Is it odd that he was court martialled? I would have thought a civilian court would have dealt with it, though it was at an overseas RAF base ( Gatow)
When posted abroad - and most certainly in Germany - almost all offences within the community are heard by Courts Martial (whereas in the UK, very serious allegations, such as rape and murder, are heard in civilian courts). This also applies to 'dependents' (a dreadful term) and UK civilians working for HM Forces in-country. Why? It is to ensure that UK personnel are subject to 'British' Justice. Imagine if an SP was accused of similar offences in, say, Saudi Arabia?*
* Probably acquitted, that's what!
* Probably acquitted, that's what!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Status of Forces?
Evidence within military purview?
Remember wives were subject to Military law when domiciled with spouse overseas.
Evidence within military purview?
Remember wives were subject to Military law when domiciled with spouse overseas.
Isn't a relatively recent thing that ex-serving, subject to attorney general approval, can now face a courts martial at any point in the future? I think it came in AFA06; prior to 2009 Service Law evaporated shortly after leaving.
Status of Forces?
Evidence within military purview?
Remember wives were subject to Military law when domiciled with spouse overseas.
Evidence within military purview?
Remember wives were subject to Military law when domiciled with spouse overseas.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,819
Received 2,795 Likes
on
1,190 Posts
Thank you all of you for the concise explanations.
So even though no longer serving, one can still be subject to a court martial, I would imagine the detention of such a subject prior to the court date, if indeed he was detained on a military establishment would be interesting considering he is in effect a civilian.
I do hope the system has improved, because the system I served under a decent barrister would run circles around a court martial.
Interesting that Just This Once, was that backdated to service prior to It's introduction?
.
So even though no longer serving, one can still be subject to a court martial, I would imagine the detention of such a subject prior to the court date, if indeed he was detained on a military establishment would be interesting considering he is in effect a civilian.
I do hope the system has improved, because the system I served under a decent barrister would run circles around a court martial.
Interesting that Just This Once, was that backdated to service prior to It's introduction?
.
Last edited by NutLoose; 9th Oct 2014 at 17:21.
Found the relevant extracts:
But there is a magic bullet exception:
The AFA06 (enacted in 2009?) brought in sweeping powers. As I understand it if you have served, however briefly and however long ago, the Service can now come after you for any offence.
Incidentally being subject to Service Law is part of the X-factor calculation - perhaps we should now pay it to those who have left….
Time limit for charging person formerly subject to service law
This section applies where a person ceases to be subject to service law.
The person may not, after the end of six months beginning with the date he ceased to be subject to service law, be charged with a service offence committed while he was so subject.
This section applies where a person ceases to be subject to service law.
The person may not, after the end of six months beginning with the date he ceased to be subject to service law, be charged with a service offence committed while he was so subject.
Sections 55 to 60: exceptions and interpretation
(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.
(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.
Incidentally being subject to Service Law is part of the X-factor calculation - perhaps we should now pay it to those who have left….
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,819
Received 2,795 Likes
on
1,190 Posts
Damn, they might want my woolly blue gloves back 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Area 51
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Credit is due here to the RAF Police. Complaints to civ plod got nowhere but once the RAFP got hold of it they issued a plea for other victims to come forward and succeeded in gaining justice for 13 RAF kids who had been abused.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,819
Received 2,795 Likes
on
1,190 Posts
Yep, I just hope they can now put it behind them and move forward with their lives now he has been taken off the streets.
As reported the UK plod consulted Attorney General/DPP but were unable to press charges because the offences were committed outside UK; they passed all the evidence to the German police who similarly could not do anything because of the rules regarding UK service personnel at the time of the offences, so it went to RAF plod who under the relatively recent changes could press charges.
Sounds like the UK civil police did a good job in evidence gathering in the first place so that there was a case to answer. Similar hopes that the victims lives have not been permanently affected.
Sounds like the UK civil police did a good job in evidence gathering in the first place so that there was a case to answer. Similar hopes that the victims lives have not been permanently affected.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
And if you didn't you were found guilty.
Of course if your barrister got you off you paid a stiff penalty anyway. AFAIK, a rep and loss of seniority in the dark blue often dropped you back into the promotion bracket
Of course if your barrister got you off you paid a stiff penalty anyway. AFAIK, a rep and loss of seniority in the dark blue often dropped you back into the promotion bracket
I do hope the system has improved, because the system I served under a decent barrister would run circles around a court martial.
The verdict was not guilty, but the unspoken adjunct to the verdict was "we know you're guilty, you know you're guilty, so just count yourself lucky!"
Good chap and a great piss-up in the mess after he was discharged!
I do wonder about the power of a CM over someone that is no longer serving. How, for example, do they force someone to attend? Mil Pol with the power of arrest? Civvies? Technically they have police warrants, I guess. But isn't this a sucky area? What if he refuses to accept the authority of the Court?
Courtney, as I understand it the military police don't have powers of arrest over civilians (even ex-military ones) unless they are under AFA jurisdiction overseas, and so they have to call for a proper copper to do the business. The Attorney General (presumably) having decided to prosecute under the AFA, Civpol can compel attendance at a properly constituted court, which under the new system the CMs are.
That said, the impending hefty prison sentence will be served in a mainstream jail rather than Colchester, which will hopefully be the least pleasant option given the sort of people to be found there!
That said, the impending hefty prison sentence will be served in a mainstream jail rather than Colchester, which will hopefully be the least pleasant option given the sort of people to be found there!