I was at Bruggen when five of our line'ies were arrested for drugs offences, one pleaded guilty and was sentenced, one pleaded not guilty and also had a well known barrister acting on his behalf who shredded the evidence, he was found not guilty, records showed they had been released from custody at XYZ hour in accordance with the regulations, the Orderly Officer swore that they were still their being interviewed well past that time ( as in hours ) when he did defaulters. I seem to remember the fallout was pretty damning and the SIB Sgt was put back into uniform, with others being disciplined over the forgeries of the log etc, the rest pleaded not guilty and they were all thrown out because of the tainted evidence.

I was told by a chum (who was part of a unit undergoing training as 'prone to capture personnel') that he was actually waterboarded during the interrogation phase of his course.

Before anyone freaks, this was many years ago (he is in his 80's)....

Obviously it was in a highly controlled environment and there was no danger to himself.

I guess that probably came under the 'train hard, fight easy' heading...?

The Chivenor "event" to which BEags refers became a lrgal precedent of some sort for a while - maybe still is.

When Senior Teeterette was reading law, she sidled up to me one day and said: "What's all this about something that happened in Chivenor???" as it was referenced in one of her legal tomes.

Aparently the precedent was used - or tried to be so - with some strange chaps who, consensually and apparently for fun, were nailing each other's willies to bits of wood.....:eek:

de gustibus non est disputandem

Who measured the water? Mug? Or best china:E

CG

"Youthful high spirits" is turning every piece of furniture, painting, and lampshade in the Mess upside down to celebrate the retirement of an Aussie exchange officer.
"Dreadful, un-officery behaviour" would have been hanging him by his ankles from the upper floor window.

The former happened, the latter did not; we knew where to draw the line.

Teeteringhead
Without wishing to be pedantic (I am in court and bored listening to the prosecution going through schedules of bank accounts) Aitken and others was heard by the Court of Appeal on the 5th May 1992 and is reported at [1992] 1 W.L.R. 1006. The sado-masochist case (Operation Spanner) was heard by the Court of Appeal on the 19th February 1992 and by the House of Lords on the 11th March 1993. R v Brown reported [1992] Q.B. 491 and [1994] 1 A.C. 212 respectively. Neither case was cited in the other. In Brown the issue was whether the 'victim' could voluntarily consent to serious bodily harm. In Aitken the issue went beyond consent but whether the JA had correctly directed the court on the circumstances in which the appellants could/should have foreseen the risk of harm arising.