The court martial of seven paratroopers accused of murdering an Iraqi teenager collapsed yesterday after the Royal Military Police investigation was condemned as "inadequate" and riddled with "serious omissions".
The hearing, which cost up to £8 million, came to an abrupt halt after the most senior judge in the Army courts directed that the defendants be found not guilty.

Jeff Blackett, the Judge Advocate General, described the evidence presented by the prosecution as "too inherently weak or vague for any sensible person to rely on".

He strongly condemned the Special Investigations Branch of the RMP for making significant errors during its inquiry into the death of 18-year-old Nadhem Abdullah. He was said by his family to have died 15 hours after being assaulted by the defendants.

Judge Advocate General's opinion. I was not there, therefore I cannot comment. If you were there you may well disagree with the judges comments.

MDP? RMP?

You're regurgitating the same facts. RMP/SIB have acted on the findings of these inquiries. Furthermore, if you know of a police force that can replace RMP let me know. You have added nothing constructive to the debate. Until you do, I'll keep my peace.

Deepcut Review Recommendations. This is a very emotive subject so I will 'cut and paste' the recommendations concerning this subject only.

Recommendation 23
RMP training should be kept under review to ensure that investigators are skilled in best practice in interviewing complainants, recording their accounts, pursuing lines of enquiry in investigations and that they are aware of the particular problems that may arise where the alleged perpetrator retaliates, or others turn, against a complainant.

Recommendation 24
The RMP should be brought within the regime of inspection of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) so that the consistent application of best practice in the investigation of crimes and complaints can be monitored. HMIC can determine whether the RMP is sufficiently well-resourced and appropriately trained to perform the functions assigned to it.

In essence nobody is completely sure that the RMP is sufficiently well-resourced [b]and appropriately trained to perform the functions assigned to it.

I did not write the report.

You seem to miss the point - The one thing I am supplying is EVIDENCE - one can assume and fill pages with conjecture but evidence is always better in cases like this.

And guess what, SIB were reviewed by HMIC (last year/year before?) and came out of it rather well. Like Cic plod with CPS we don't decide to charge-APA does. If they're not happy with the evidence they either don't charge or request further enquiries be made.

Because a disparity between civilian courts and courts martial would be unfair. The (admittedly often madenning) propensity for civvy lawyers to get cases binned on technicalities or procedural errors is a reality, and it would be unfair if a case tried by a civilian court would be dismissed when it would result in a conviction in a Court Martial.

I think you've misunderstood my original point - it probably wasn't very well expressed. I wasn't suggesting that a 'robust prosecution' could or should brush aside errors to secure a conviction regardless because the Daily Mail thinks that 'someone, anyone, should pay'. My point was that this appointment seems to be aimed at bringing in a subject matter expert to advise on the procedures necessary to avoid errors occuring at all - i.e. to stop people 'getting off' on avoidable technicalities. I think that's pretty healthy. Posters above have variously criticised and defended aspects of the Army's judicial apparatus. Surely the fact that they are looking at ways to raise their game (in the same way as we in the violent bits of the Army are always looking at ways to improve our TTPs) should be applauded? If they get it right, hopeless cases are less likely to come to CM, those against whom they present overwhelmingly convincing evidence are more likely to plead 'guilty' and those who are not will still be able to rely on the presumption of innocence and their expensive civvy brief. After all, nobody's suggesting changes to the law - they're just trying to make the system work better.

I'm not suggesting that it's a disaster at the moment, but standing still and congratulating yourself on being great isn't the Army way. If it can be done better still, it should be.

standing still and congratulating yourself on being great isn't the Army way. If it can be done better still, it should be.

Here here

Justice is meant to be blind, however it is also blind to the fact that whoever can afford the best avocate will generally win the case.

unfortunately if you are an aspiring lawyer you don't join the juge advocate corp or what ever it is called now. Likewise high flying lawyer don't wait in line to join the CPS it's all about who can afford the best brief!

Is this tidy-up driven by Gordon Mugabe, cross because the MoD failed to frame Colonel Mendoca?

I don´t know, what is the difference between RMP and MDP?

I love jokes me.


That is a bit lame to be honest. I don´t think civvie coppers and the MDP, have an advantage over the military coppers because people gladly tell them all.

It is surely the investigators job to winkle out info, be that genuinely forgotton or mistaken, or deliberately withheld or fabricated.

The investigators in to the Rhys Jones murder, were able to cut throught a swath of lies acording to the press.

The RMP/MDP question was asked several times of COatELMPT as he was ripping into military investigators using cut and paste methods, but posted an article that was critical of MDP.

My response was not a bit lame at all in context and certainly didn't claim civplod / MDP have an advantage in terms of co-operation. My dig at CO was that people can't criticise RMP until they get their own house in order-obstruction, non-co-operation is a fact of life in this job but no-one really cares unless an incident directly affects them. The point is RMP, especially SIB, have taken onboard criticism over the last few years and acted upon it. They work in difficult environments where it is not always practical to employ all investigation techniques as well as they'd like, due to the security situation.

During the Cambrian patrols, team one, from PARA turns up at the stand..."Right" says the DS, "you are to go into that copse and capture a rabbit. Is there anything extra you would like?" "We'd like a mortar smoke and HE task before we go in". A mortar mission later, the lads go in and after a pretty serious firepower demo return with a tattered mammalian corpse that might once have been a rabbit...

Next up is the patrol from "Them". when they are asked if they need anything extra they request satellite surveillance, 3-d imagery and some mission rehearsal software. They head off. Ten minutes later a single shot rings out and they return with a slightly surprised rabbit's body, with a single wound between the eyes.

Finally the RMP turn up. Asked if they want anything they reply "no" and storm off into the copse. Ten minutes later they return with a disgruntled squirrel, a bit battered and edgy. "Hang on!" says the DS. "I asked for a rabbit!"

One of the RMP patrol nudges the bruised and black-eyed squirrel. "Alright, alright I'm a rabbit..."

I was being sarcastice

re response.

Do the Infantry say. "We could have taken the position a bit easier if the enemy had all shot themselves in the head"?

Investigator (Detective) does what it says on the job spec, surely.

Afraid I disagree. If that were to happen it would surely prove that the Court Martial was more effective. For instance we expect to have a more effective health system than our civilian counterparts for a number of reasons, amongst them that that it's seen as an important part of the military covenant and a force multiplier. Why should we not also expect to have a more effective judicial system?

Put it another way. I imagine that you would not be happy to serve alongside somebody who had almost certainly committed a rape but had got off on a technicality. If a more effective military justice system makes this less likely to happen then how can it not be a positive development?