Maybe it is the fault of the people who provide the evidence!

A young man walks into the recruitment office and applies to join the RSIGS, REME, RLC Tech trade or Royal Engineers etc.
He takes the tests and is found to lack the aptitude to apply for these roles.
He considers the other roles then available and realises that promotion in the Infantry, RAC, Gunners etc does not come easy. He chooses the AGC (RMP) as LCpl is a given.

He carries out his menial tasks to the complete satisfaction of his superiors and a few years later (a few years further from his schooling as well) he is a Sgt and having joined the SIB he is now investigating rapes and murders.

The Sgts exam in the civilian police force is extremely testing and compares with the Gunnery Careers, Yeoman/Foreman of Sigs, REME Artificer, RE Clerk of Works type courses.

Our RMP Sgt has passed CLM - Could somebody let jus know what training the SIB Sgt has had in comparison to his civilian counterpart.

A yound welsh soldier died of heat exhaustion in Tidworth many months ago, like has happened hundreds of times during my 30 yrs service, however he died in Salisbury Hospital therefore the Wiltshire Constabulary dealt with the case. Suddenly Adjutant, Provost Sgt etc in court. Would they have been Court Martialled if he had died in the Med Centre and the RMP had investigated? History says NO!

I believe most people want to see the British Armed Forces keep their reputation as highly disciplined bodies that simply do not tolerate the sort of ugly, sick behaviour that was exposed, for example, in the US Army at Abu Ghraib.

But, the choice seems to be between leaving investigations & prosecutions entirely in the hands of military staff with experience & understanding of what it's like to be on active service, in which case they are likely to 'err' on the side of the Accused if they see reason to, irrespective of their technical guilt; or, bringing in civilian lawyers who will most definitely be out to earn their enormous salaries by showing the politicians who appointed them how good they are at defending the 'rights' of terrorists, rioters, looters and general criminals.
Never mind about the claim that civilian prosecutors will know the difference between "deliberately flouting the law" and "young soldiers ... who make a terrible mistake." Whether they do or not, their interpretation of "deliberately flouting the law" will (from the safety of their offices) be as strict & legalistic as their attitude is towards the civilian police, trapped in a web of procedural regulations and political correctness.
If THEY err at all, it will most certainly NOT be on the side of the British Forces.

Few Servicemen and -women can be in any doubt that this government has contempt for the Forces as the last home of qualities like patriotism, pride, discipline and high standards, which they are systematically eliminating in the rest of society, from our schools, the police, the NHS, and everywhere else. The speed with which they move to change the system that hasn't brought the convictions they want, is in stark contrast to the complete lack of interest with which they address (or rather, don't address) the terrible deficiencies in numbers, equipment and facilities that cause the Yanks to name us "The Borrowers".

It will be interesting to see if any political party (apart from the BNP) criticizes this further step to de-militarize the military, and undermine morale. Then, when numbers falls so far that the Forces can't cope, how long it will take some Minister ( ex-CND pacifist or former communist ) to decide that we have to recruit even more directly from Africa, or just merge what's left of our Army, Navy and Airforce into a EU Defence Force ?

Most disturbing.
Does 'This' stem from the effects of sending troops to an illegal war, or one of high debatable question.
Then when troops on the ground, the MEN risking life and limb, get out of hand the System is unable to find a PC answer to convicting them, 'the PBI', so us safe in our beds at home will now ensure that 'They' will face a Proper System of Justice and not one born from hundreds of years of practical expireance.
john

Have i missed something?

Will EVERY soldier ALSO get a QC (Mrs Blair hopefully) and with 3 years military experience to defend him??????

or some "Random orriface" with no judicial experience????

If he qualifies for legal aid or can otherwise afford it, yes. She'd be a pretty stupid choice though, since she doesn't 'do' criminal law. I think the problem thus far has been decent civvy defence briefs making mincemeat of rather less experienced military prosecutors, as they should if the case is full of holes. Despite the paranoid right-wing witterings of Bow Street Runner, I see no evidence that anyone's trying to take our justice system away from military hands or remove the presumption of innocence. What they're trying to do is ensure that, in the future, there's less chance of c0cking up expensive and high-profile prosecutions when it's perfectly obvious that there's a case to answer. CMs do fall flat because the cases aren't prepared properly, as do civvy cases. Just because it happens in civvy street though is no reason for us to accept it. A 'not guilty' verdict because the evidence doesn't support a conviction is one thing. A 'not guilty' verdict because evidence is mishandled or because witnesses are not forthcoming is quite another.

I don't quite see how we get from an attempt to improve the professional standards of the Army Prosecuting Authority to political kangaroo courts to try us all for baby-killing.

and therein lies the question.

Who decides if the soldier qualifies? and which soldier can afford a QC. Bloody silly comment.

MOD supplying (at millions £ cost) to ensure a qualified prosecution is OK.

MOD supplying (at millions cost) to defendants to ensure a qualified defence is where??????????????????????????????????????????????

Anyone see the difference?

OK, it was a slightly frivolous comment, but here are examples:

www.thomasmore.law.co....amp;id=152

Flt Lt Kendall (the one who refused to play at TELIC) was also represented by a QC www.independent.co.uk/...0084.html, as I think (though can't find the Defence identified in reports) were those tried for the death of Pte Williams last year.

The legal aid system is actually pretty fair. Nobody is left without a defence because they can't afford one - that's the point of it. See here: www.legalservices.gov....al_aid.asp

I'm pretty sure that the bar for assistance in criminal cases tends to be lower than for civil, and that it is available to all in cases at crown court and higher. As to whether or not you get a QC, that's down to the gravity of the charge. Serious offences, such as murder, are almost always tried by QCs on both sides - if, however, you're being done for shoplifting you've got as much chance of hiring one as have the Army Prosecuting Authority (probably less in fact).

So, actually, not so silly after all.

I'm not sure it's entirely relevant though, as serious Courts Martial have always been fought out by civvy barristers on both sides. The bloke we're discussing has been appointed to advise the Army on how to bring prosecutions better - in other words how both to avoid c0cking things up before the case comes to court, or how to recognise, before twenty million pounds of public money is wasted, that a case is going to be laughed out before it gets there. That sounds like a pretty sensible plan to me - you could describe it as 'mentoring'.

Edit to add - Courts Martial work the same way as Crown Courts for legal aid purposes. Your summary dealing would be like the Magistrate's Court if you were allowed legal representation. But you aren't.

By the way, I'm an infantryman, not a lawyer (though with a happy G1-related tour behind me). If there's a real lawyer out there sniggering at my posting drivel, please put me straight.

In my time I was Clerk to various Courts martial coz I kept irritating certain seniors. In all but one case the accused would never have been charged or court martialed according to the board of officers if they'd had proper legal representation from the outset. I'm talking about the 1970s-90s.

So leap forward to todays situation and I'd say to everyone now serving - Make no statement of any kind in any post op. debrief or military disicipline case in case it is dragged out at a later date and used against you when you might not have been aware of the risk at the time. Sign nothing.

The idea behind a military (covering all three services) prosecution service is to replace the old arrangement of the military convening authority, this usually being the formation commander advised by the army (etc) lawyers and G1 staff officers running their eye over whatever the RMP had produced. Not really surprising that some very poorly prepared cases went to CM. (and not forgetting the European Court's finding about the iniquity of the convening authority also being the sentence confirming authority - in effect the same dildos who advised the GOC on whether or not to prosecute also advised him on whether or not to confirm the sentence!).

Of course it depends on the jurisdiction but in England & Wales the old civvy system was the DPP making decisions about more serious cases and then relying on hiring learned counsel or using police prosecutors to do the work in court. And it wasn't so long ago that CMs would sometimes have serving officers acting as prosecution as well as defending.

My understanding of serious cases in a common law jurisdiction outside UK is that the DPP (who do some of their own court work but also hire learned counsel for major cases, ie like the CPS does), is that they work closely with the police investigation to ensure that the coppers don't stuff up the evidence or proceed with inadequate evidence. Of course the thicker end of the tabloid press can always present this as allowing criminals to escape prosecution rather than incompetance by the boys and girls in blue (or just simple lack of sufficient evidence).

Hmmm, you have a very poor view of RMP and their ability to investigate. So a civilian police Sgt has passed an exam that is as hard as that undertaken by a Gunner, Yeoman etc. Lol

The civilian police Sgt has sat an exam that deals almost exclusively with PACE and charging, none, or very little of it deals with investigation technique, none of it qualifies a Sgt to deal with any serious investigation such as rape or murder as quoted by yourself.

An SIB Sgt has undertaken a six month attachment to a SIB Sect which they must complete to the satisfaction of the Sect OC/WO. They must then be recommended to attend the L3IC (the SIB Course). Before they can attend it they must pass a difficult passing in test. The course itself is 2 months long and has a reasonably high failure rate. Once they have achieved this, if they are selected they undergo a six month probationary period to ensure they are capable of doing their job. Oh yes, they undertake the CLM as well, just as every other soldier selected for promotion has to.

At this stage they will normally form part of a team that will investigate the more serious offences, such as rape or murder (not that we get too many of the latter to investigate), but they will be just that, a member of a team led by more experienced investigators.

This is comparative to the selection and training undertaken by civilian CID constables.

In reality, comparatively few cases investigated by RMP are criticised at CM, even fewer investigated by SIB are criticised. Pray tell, how have you formed your opinion on RMP, have you any specific cases to cite or, are you just spouting your uneducated opinion on here - in a similar manner to your claim that you know of 'hundreds' of soldiers during your career who have been 'beasted' until they died???

Your silly example about the mistreatment case at Tidworth is just that, silly. RMP do not investigate any sudden deaths within the UK.

You should be on the stage mate.

Silly me, I thought the marks required to enter into RMP were in the top tier. As for rapid promotion in RMP, the average to Sgt has only recently dropped to about 10.5 yrs-it can be done quicker in several other trades. It is getting quicker due to a high turnover of experienced investigators.

As for RMP Sgts only passing their CLM to get promoted, that ignores the fact that you also have to be a Class 1 screw, requiringnthe sitting of the Level 2 investigations course. During my time in, I have also acquired several useful career RMP courses and several others of a wider nature.

COatELMPT-maybe you should consider a change to RMP, since you appear to have a much needed ability to shape non-facts to fit your assumptions. In case, you're unsure, that was an ironic comment...

No truer word spoken in jest?

It's a fair cop, guv, it woz me that did all those murders. Please stop beating me! :löl:

Abuse trial's collapse criticised

Judge Blackett said the evidence was too "inherently weak"
Human rights groups have condemned the way abuse allegations against the armed forces are handled after the trial of seven UK soldiers in Iraq collapses.
There was not enough evidence for a conviction, a military judge ruled - adding that Army investigators made "serious omissions" during the inquiry.

The men from the Parachute Regiment all denied killing Iraqi teenager Nadhem Abdullah in al-Ferkah, southern Iraq, in May 2003.

Judge Advocate General Jeff Blackett ordered the courts martial to acquit the soldiers because of a lack of evidence.

I wonder who collected the evidence.

High profile Court Martials like this are expensive and embarrassing.

Political row as Iraq murder case against soldiers collapsesOwen Bowcott and Richard Norton-Taylor The Guardian, Friday 4 November 2005 Article history

The ability of the military police to investigate allegations against British troops in Iraq was thrown into doubt last night after the collapse of a high-profile court martial amid fiercely contested claims that the trial was politically motivated.
The collapse of the case could exacerbate growing tension between military commanders, army prosecutors and the attorney general over the handling of allegations about the behaviour of British soldiers in southern Iraq.

The Ministry of Defence, which hotly denied politics had anything to do with the case, promised to study the critical comments made by the army's advocate general, Jeff Blackett, after he ordered that charges of murder and violent disorder against seven paratroopers be dropped.

Basic policing errors had been made by investigators, the judge said as the court martial in Colchester, Essex. There had been delays in interviewing witnesses and defendants under caution, DNA samples had not been taken and hospital registers and burial records left uninvestigated.
The decision added to the criticism already levelled at the military police Special Investigation Branch which is under severe pressure in Iraq. Last month its leading investigator was found dead in his room in Basra. His suicide was linked to the excessive strains imposed on him and the lack of resources available to operate in what amounts to a war zone.

The collapse of the prosecution, which one defence barrister implied had been pursued for political reasons, will have been watched carefully by British troops in Iraq. Other cases involving alleged brutality against Iraqi civilians are still scheduled to come to trial.

Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, recently accused senior army officers and military police of being insufficiently qualified or experienced to handle investigations into alleged murder and abuse of Iraqi civilians. But the collapse of the case was not a signal that troops could act with impunity. "Our soldiers are not above the law," said an MoD spokesman.

Basic policing errors - Not my opinion, but that of a High Court Judge!

And I wonder who withheld, fabricated or simply forgot to present certain facts to the investigators?

You're just like the clowns who whine when we fail to find your stolen property. The same property that one of your colleagues decided to 'liberate' after said clown was too stupid to lock their room when they went on the lash. And your mates know who the thief is but won't snitch to the Monkeys.

Yet idiots still blame the investigator. Sometimes we are to blame, sometimes not. But policework isn't like Inspector Morse or Columbo. The APA also has a responsibilty as regards investigation. Any 'glaring omissions' should be pounced upon by their honed legal minds.

You're right, high profile courts martial are expensive and embarassing. Blame the cocks who commit high profile crimes.

By Jonathan Brown
Saturday, 10 December 2005

Print Email Search
Search
Go
Independent.co.uk Web
Bookmark & Share
Digg It
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
What are these?

Change font size: A | A | A
The soldier alleged to have faked photographs appearing to show British troops abusing an Iraqi prisoner will not face criminal charges.


The announcement yesterday by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) almost certainly marks the end of legal proceedings in a case that has cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds to investigate.

The CPS said lawyers had advised the Ministry of Defence Police that there was insufficient evidence for a "realistic prospect of conviction" against Private Stuart Mackenzie.

It follows the collapse in April of a court martial at the Military Court Centre in Catterick, North Yorkshire, against Pte Mackenzie, 25, a Territorial with the Lancastrian and Cumbrian Volunteers. The Army admitted then that it could not prove that Pte Mackenzie was on duty on the day the pictures were alleged to have been staged.

A CPS spokesman said: "We have concluded there is insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of a conviction."

[b]Insufficient evidence - Not my opinion, but that of the CPS.

Do you even undertand the difference between Military Police (RMP GPD + SIB) and Ministry of Defence Police?

The Aitken report discusses cases of abuse investigated by the Royal Military police
· Baha Mousa (pictured below)

Mousa, 26, died on September 15 2003. The Iraqi hotel worker suffered 93 injuries at the hands of British soldiers. He was detained along with other Iraqis by members of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment. They were hooded, stressed and deprived of food and sleep. A postmortem found Mousa's injuries consistent with a "systematic beating".

In spite of a £20m military investigation and court martial, a proper narrative of how Mousa came to die has never emerged because of what Mr Justice McKinnon, a military judge advocate, described as a "closing of ranks".

Last year's court martial led to the conviction of one member of the regiment, Corporal Donald Payne, 35, who became the first British convicted war criminal after he admitted treating the Iraqis inhumanely. He was jailed for a year and dismissed from the army. Others in the regiment, including the former commander in Iraq, Colonel Jorge Mendonca, 43, were cleared on a judge's orders due to lack of evidence.· Ahmed Jabber Kareem

The 16-year-old drowned after allegedly being thrown into the Shatt al-Arab canal by three guardsmen as a punishment for alleged looting. All were acquitted of his manslaughter.

· Said Shabram

Less than two weeks after the death of Kareem, Said Shabram suffered the same fate. He and another Iraqi in Basra were said to have been signalled by a soldier to follow him to the dockside, where they were allegedly ordered to stand at the edge before being pushed in. An officer and two soldiers from 32 Engineer Regiment faced a manslaughter charge but this was later dropped. The soldiers claimed the Iraqis dived into the waterway in a panic and Shabram drowned.

· Nadhem Abdullah

Seven members of the Parachute Regiment were charged with the murder of Abdullah, 18, in al-Ferkah in May 2003 but were freed in November 2005 after a judge ruled there was insufficient evidence and the case had not been properly investigated. The soldiers were accused of using their "fists, boots, rifles and helmets" to kill Abdullah at a roadside in Maysan province, north of Basra.

None of this is my opinion. Is it FACT!

Does your whole argument consist of cut and paste? Its pointless discussing it with a closed mind.

I'll try again. Whats the difference between RMP and MDP?