Thread: Accused troops face more robust Courts Martial

Originally Posted by Fred_Karno

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?

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.

Originally Posted by hogspawn

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?

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Whats the difference between RMP and MDP?

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

I love jokes me. :D

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

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..."

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

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.

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.

Originally Posted by hogspawn

Originally Posted by Fred_Karno

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?

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.

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?