Gilbert Blades - The Scourge of UK MOD Courts Martial
 

This is a spin off from another thread, but I wonder if anyone has any stories about Gilbert Blades (a civlian solicitor advocate who defended countless sailors, soldiers and airmen at MOD courts martial, all over the world, usually winning his case. He also played a large part in bringing about the reforms to Court Martial procedures and organization which have taken place since the mid 90's).

I watched him badgering a young female SAC prosecution witness once:

GB - Now young lady, I understand that you went to a drinking club on the station after your shift. What time did you get there?

SAC - About 2 p.m. sir.

GB - When did you leave the club?

SAC - about 7 p.m. sir.

GB - What did you have to drink during that time?

SAC - 2 brandy sours sir.

GB - Are you sure you had only 2 brandy sours in 5 hours?

SAC - Yes sir.

GB - Do you expect this court to believe that after 5 hours in this club you were not drunk?

SAC - No sir. I was out of my brains. After one brandy sour I'm anyone's.

Muted chuckles across the courtroom.

Rgds SOS

I knew her well :O:O

I think I married her.

Wish I had!

Rgds SOS

So do I! :ok:

GB is overated. Having seen him first hand (not as a defendant/accused!) he's great at mitigation but not so good at getting them off the charges. He bored the JA rotten, who, after 5 mins of GB waffling, asked "Mr B, please get to the point, we haven't got all day."

I have to agree with Twon. I remember him in action in the 80's, coming out with nonsense phrases "As Hamlet said, 'Something is Rotten in the state of Denmark', as there is something rotten in the prosecutions case". All air, and they both got 6 months. ;)

"Mr B, please get to the point, we haven't got all day."


To which I hope good old GB replied, "Oh but your honour, we have!"

Had the (dubious) pleasure of being involved in a number of CMs with GB defending. My memories of him was of a pleasant chap with a friendly manner. His success came I think in part from his opposition in the court....some of the Legal Branch officers (there was only a handful in the 90s) barely knew what day of the week it was as they were running from pillar to post prosecuting all over the place. I would say their knowledge of their briefs was fairly flimsy in many cases. GB was also a loose cannon and would pick something out of the air and the RAF would be left wallowing. I recall one case where he heard on arrival that a witness had been hospitalised way down south (Halton Hosp)...in a flash this witness became the most important man in the world and he couldn't possibly defend his client unless this man was brought to give evidence. After a great deal of chasing this man down ( word we had was that he was vsi)...the medics gave the go-ahead for him to give evidence from his sickbed. More chasing round to organise a charabanc outing to said sickbed about 300 miles south of our location....when GB was presented with master plan to allow him to question said witness...a sharp intake of breath and would you believe it ...he had second thoughts and that particular witness really did not have anything to add to his defence case. His ploy had it not been countered..would have resulted in him asking for a dismissal. He did get his client off the charge which had he been found guilty would have seen him doing a fair amount of time in MCTC.

How on earth could the JA possibly say such a thing? There are no time limits on justice.....

I heard tell that, on seeing Gilbert's rather flamboyant arrival (posh car with personal plates etc.), the prosecuter was seen to turn to a colleague and ask "Is this bloke any good...??".

It may or may not have been a case involving a caravan in a field not far from a certain East Anglian aerodrome....

He was (is?) good at what he did, he recognised that every single person in the Courts Martial system wasn't particularly experienced in their roles and he picked that apart with his own extensive experience. He's historically made a career out of making military prosecution people (and witnesses) look silly or unreliable through loopholes and aggressive cross examination.

Being a defence lawyer of course he always represented the "guilty bastard" and seeing as he specialises on picking technical holes in the CM system, it stands to reason that a lot of pretty bad people have walked free because of him.

My first encounter was in the early 1990s where he was defending 2 "policemen" (I hate to use the word in this case) accused of theft. They had been caught red handed by a fireman, and had admitted guilt in the hours after the event, to several parties, me included as they sought to get advice on how to lessen the blow of repercussions.
They got free thanks to Gilbert's cross examination on techinical points. That's how he always won, his targets just weren't experienced enough and he'd tie them in knots on procedure.

Thankfully it's changed now, the Defence Legal Services, and the Service Prosecuting Authority (as well as the Service Police) are more professional and more experienced and his company doesn't do so well these days.

I was on guard on the main gate at RAF Wyton in the early 90's when a Rolls Royce came down to the gate. Treating it just as any other vehicle that turned up at the gate I asked the driver to pull over to the side of the road for a quick vehicle search, the driver piped up with "dont you know who I am" etc etc and came across as very up himself so to speak. Turns out it was GB, I was non the wiser as I was still wet behind the ears. Still did my job and searched his vehicle though before I was going to raise that barrier.

If that involved the RAFP mistakenly not covering an overgrown wild back entrance that a mangy cat couldn't get through but by which means the accused allegedly left the said caravan then we might be talking about the same case Beags.

As OC PSF at that certain East Anglian aerodrome I had the dubious pleasure of administering that CM

In my day if you had legal representation you were obviously guilty.

I agree with pamac51. At a time when a court martial was seen as an administrative mechanism to give "Guilty bastards" more than the 28 days available to a Station Commander I had some success defendingl. It wasn't hard, just a careful reading through of the evidence and a bit of digging at witnesses in court. I think that courts were used to having defending officers doing mitigation only and were flummoxed when some real defending was thrown at them.

At one Court Martial where I was an OUI, the JA in his summing up said:

"Despite the efforts of the Prosecuting Officer, this Court Martial has found you Guilty..."

It was well observed as the flt lt concerned didn't know his arse from his charge sheet.

He is still serving, but now holds far more senior rank.

sisemen, it is indeed possible that we are talking about the same case.....and a gap in the hedge through which an Animal might perhaps have been able to have left the field, without the RAFP having observed such a departure.....:\

As a member of a CM some years ago, I saw GB perform on two back-to-back cases. On both occasions the Prosecution was ill-prepared (the LEGAD arrived for the first hearing without Oxfords and a Service Dress Hat (cue OC Supply rapidly procuring said articles). However, I'm not sure that GB was much better prepared. He breezed in to the Court Room and appeared to have little knowledge of the case, and blustered, until the JA called a stay in proceedings so that the defence could be prepared...

I understood the stake out ceased when it was determined that the caravan occupant had settled down for the night thus leaving the caravan unobserved. Had a back door been used, how did the acquited later attend the parish council meeting 82 miles away as evidenced by the chairman of the parish council and the council minutes.

Not GB, but advised by him, counsel at CM at Akrotiri to chief prosecution witness:

". . . when your husband was away on duty, were you a frequent habitue of the airport lounge bar at Teeside airport?"

"No, sir."

"I put it to you that the barman by the name of John would recognise you. I say again, were you a frequent habitue of the airport lounge bar at Teeside airport."

"yes."

"No more questions."

The accused was acquited and retired not long afterwards.