Thread: Accused troops face more robust Courts Martial

Originally Posted by Mr_C_Hinecap

I'm more than happy that we get a better legal system for the Armed Forces. Continuity in post and some external experience is a very good thing. We've screwed up far too many CM's so a real robust system is welcome.

Is your first name Bruce by anychance?

Which CMs have we screwed up?

Originally Posted by chocolate_frog

Originally Posted by Mr_C_Hinecap

I'm more than happy that we get a better legal system for the Armed Forces. Continuity in post and some external experience is a very good thing. We've screwed up far too many CM's so a real robust system is welcome.

Is your first name Bruce by anychance?

Which CMs have we screwed up?

Which ones? Apart from the obvious one of Baha Mousa, I can think of several from my own personal experience. The current court martial system isn't bad however it isn't perfect either. Anything that improves it can only be a good thing.

Mr Houlder is filling a new post created as part of the Armed Forces Act 2006 which sought, amongst other things, to standardise the military justice system across the 3 Services. He isn't the thin edge of a Labour Wedge as some would have it. The Act itself appears to have been a sensible re-writing of the service discipline acts that were last re-drafted in the 1950s and reflects the increase in joint operations that are being undertaken. At heart the system hasn't changed hugely: servicemen will still be prosecuted by military lawyers in courts martial.

Of course, we might have all been a bit calmer if The Times hadn't sensationalised this (or if Mr H hadn't given the interview in the first place), but that's journalism for you...

Court MARTIAL. Says what it does, and what is should be.

Bang on ChocFrog. CMs evolved because soldiers operate in completely different environments to civilians. Soldiers exist to give substance to all those bollocks bit of papers beloved of lawyers. If this new chap is just going to make the system run effectively then great. We'll stop innocent soldiers getting fitted up with charges that collapse in court. My fear is that we'll get fitted up like those poor Blackwater dudes once "dangers gone and wrongs have been righted."

PS the bloke's name was Torquemada.

Originally Posted by Exrivofrigido

Interesting article. 'Robust prosecution' is not the same as 'fitting up' - it means doing the job properly and not letting the guilty walk because of technical errors in preparing the evidence or arguing the case. After all, Baha Mousa didn't beat himself to death in custody and I don't think many of us feel particularly easy with the fact that those responsible (at all levels) got away with murder.

I'm surprised that the conviction rate at CM is higher than the average since I've often assumed (perhaps naively) that a decent civvy barrister will, more often than not, make mincemeat out of the Army Prosecuting Authority. Perhaps it is the case that soldiers are more likely to plead guilty when they're 'bang to rights' than civvies - does anyone know?

You mean like the civvy system then?

So squaddies are unfairly more likely to be convicted than civvies.

Originally Posted by hogspawn

Originally Posted by Exrivofrigido

Interesting article. 'Robust prosecution' is not the same as 'fitting up' - it means doing the job properly and not letting the guilty walk because of technical errors in preparing the evidence or arguing the case. After all, Baha Mousa didn't beat himself to death in custody and I don't think many of us feel particularly easy with the fact that those responsible (at all levels) got away with murder.

I'm surprised that the conviction rate at CM is higher than the average since I've often assumed (perhaps naively) that a decent civvy barrister will, more often than not, make mincemeat out of the Army Prosecuting Authority. Perhaps it is the case that soldiers are more likely to plead guilty when they're 'bang to rights' than civvies - does anyone know?

You mean like the civvy system then?

So squaddies are unfairly more likely to be convicted than civvies.

What's unfair about being convicted if you did it?

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????

Originally Posted by oldgoat

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.

Originally Posted by Exrivofrigido

Originally Posted by oldgoat

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:

http://www.thomasmore.law.co.uk/index.aspx?p=9&id=152

Flt Lt Kendall (the one who refused to play at TELIC) was also represented by a QC http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...aq-470084.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: http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/publ..._legal_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. :D

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).

Originally Posted by COatELMPT

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!

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.