A Section 62, Q??????? VERY URGENT

Status
Not open for further replies.
#1
A good pal (an Officer) has told me he could be in the brown stuff at work. he has been found out to have back dated an Official form. This form is not a claim form and has nothing to do with getting any money out of the system. However the form was sent on request as evidence for an investigation into a separate but very serious matter. He has now been told to stand by for a chat on the subject and Sect 62 has been raised on a number of occasions.
what are the implications for him if this is true? as this case is going to the civil courts very soon.
Thanks for any help on this.

and NO, its not me :wink:
 
#4
thank for that :wink:
I take it this would come under this para?
No. 4 MAKING A FALSE ENTRY IN AN OFFICIAL DOCUMENT OR RECORD CONTRARY TO SECTION 62(1)(b) OF THE ARMY ACT 1955

As i said before he had no fiscal gain but did have other motives in back dating some evidence, when submitting higher up, that he confessed to me over the weekend. I know its going to the civil courts so i guess i cannot go into what happened although i know, he is not the guy who is central to the civil action but has played a part.
The guy has never put a foot wrong before (a much as i know) , will this and his rank (above Lt Col) not count in his favour?
 
#5
I suppose that a civil court could view tampering with evidence as conspiracy to to pervert the course of justice (or attempting to do so). As to his rank being in his favour, any officer is expected to demonstrate the highest possible standard of integrity (or not get caught!), so rank probably doesn't matter.
 
#6
If it involves the word bullying then he needs to stand by for a hard time

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4093963.stm

Its not him..is it? 8O

Tampering with any document during an investigation is illegal and a criminal offence and the higher he is (if found out) the harder he will fall, no one will wade in to catch him. Section 62 is just a guide but it covers every subject of fraud of attempted deceit.

Be a good idea to get some legal help, I know a good one if he feels he needs it
 
#8
The guys in cheap suits routinely expect that they might be told less than the truth and seek to test everything they are told by witnesses. Soldiers are expected to support colleagues in battle and it is reasonable to expect this in a peace time situation. Wrong but likely. His response when discovered in his falsity will be important. Continued denial of any misdeed will count against him. A prompt and full admission would have benefited.
Deliberately trying to mislead is stupid. If one gets away with it, it can be the start of a slippery slope. It is certainly something that will stay in your mind for a very long time. My attitude in investigations was that chummy knew what he was doing was wrong. He has put himslelf up for auction. He can hardly complain if someone bids.
As to giving him your continued support. Your decision but if he merely sought to assist a comrade then he is a fool but not evil.
 
#11
Absolutely - make a clean breast, take the consequences on the chin and move on... that's what Integrity and Moral Courage are all about.

I've encountered Service personnel who twist and wheedle and some do get away with such behaviour in the short term, but their cards are marked and if we don't get 'em this time, you can bet your arrse we'll get them next time. And there always is a next time.

IF
 
#12
IdeasFactory said:
Absolutely - make a clean breast, take the consequences on the chin and move on... that's what Integrity and Moral Courage are all about.

I've encountered Service personnel who twist and wheedle and some do get away with such behaviour in the short term, but their cards are marked and if we don't get 'em this time, you can bet your arrse we'll get them next time. And there always is a next time.

IF
Who is included in WE.Are you
1.RMP?
2.Judge Advocate?
3.member of a "Kangaroo Court"?
4.member of a "Lynch Mob"?
5.member of "The Justice League"?
6.old lady knitting at foot of Guillotine?
 
#13
your not his adjutant are you? :lol:
If so, hide under a very big table, there will be a huge fall out if true, and he may try to take others with him in a vain attempt to soften the blow to himself. I have seen this before

he could become another statistic, fraud means any type from an MMA form to evidence submitted with the intent to deceive others.

Fraud
Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many armed forces personnel have been (a) disciplined, (b) court-martialled and (c) dismissed for improper financial claims relating to fraud since 1997. [202064]

Mr. Caplin [holding answer 6 December 2004]: The information is as follows:

Naval Service

42 Naval Service personnel have been tried by court-martial for fraud related offences. Of those, 33 were found guilty of which 18 were dismissed from the Service. Figures for trial at summary level are only available from 2001. Between then and 2003, 93 Naval Service personnel were dealt with at summary level for similar offences, three of whom were dismissed.

Army

109 officers and soldiers were tried by court-martial for fraud related offences, of which three officers and 26 soldiers were dismissed from the Service. Figures for trial at summary level are only available from 2001. Between then and 2003, 30 Army personnel were tried at summary level for similar offences.

13 Dec 2004 : Column 910W



RAF

106 Royal Air Force personnel have been disciplined at summary level for offences involving fraud. A further 112 were tried by court-martial. Of these 13 cases involved officers of whom 10 were found guilty and five dismissed from the Service. Of the remaining 99 cases involving airmen, 85 were found guilty and 14 were subsequently dismissed.
 
#14
IdeasFactory said:
I've encountered Service personnel who twist and wheedle and some do get away with such behaviour in the short term, but their cards are marked and if we don't get 'em this time, you can bet your arrse we'll get them next time. And there always is a next time.

IF
IF, I've encountered stupid g1ts with sweetie mouse perceptions and a chip on both shoulders, but you come close to taking the digestive. People who twist and wheedle come from all walks of life so stop making out the services have a monopoly on it.

The difference is that the services also have to:
spend long periods away from their families,
take incoming and
bury their dead

more frequently that other parts of society.

If you are a journalist why do'nt you ***k 0ff and find some real work to do?

If you are some sort of sad redcap or MoD Plod then you need to try and learn a bit about " policing by consent".

If they had the drill on your kneecaps I suggest that even you might twist and wheedle: or would your "moral courage" cause you to tell the enemy the truth at the first possible opportunity?
 
#15
biscuiteatingman said:
If you are a journalist why do'nt you ***k 0ff and find some real work to do?

If you are some sort of sad redcap or MoD Plod then you need to try and learn a bit about " policing by consent".
There really is nothing like research, is there?

The words stick, end, wrong and hold spring to mind.... :roll:
 
#16
I've encountered Service personnel who twist and wheedle and some do get away with such behaviour in the short term, but their cards are marked and if we don't get 'em this time, you can bet your arrse we'll get them next time. And there always is a next time.
So what are you IF?

You've certainly made sure that people are aware of what they say/post around you now and also reminded everyone of taking care when posting on any website.
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#18
BADLAD said:
A good pal (an Officer) has told me he could be in the brown stuff at work. he has been found out to have back dated an Official form. This form is not a claim form and has nothing to do with getting any money out of the system. However the form was sent on request as evidence for an investigation into a separate but very serious matter. He has now been told to stand by for a chat on the subject and Sect 62 has been raised on a number of occasions.
what are the implications for him if this is true? as this case is going to the civil courts very soon.
Thanks for any help on this.

and NO, its not me :wink:
This very thread was discussed at our Xmas booze up last night. It's OK nobody knows who you are, but according to one of our guests, your 'pal' should be concerned with 'attempting to pervert the course of justice' (a civvy offence by all accounts), which carries a jail sentence, which will mean loss of employment, criminal record, history of dishonesty, no future. Furthermore, if he is called to court and fails to admit his 'error' in court, he can add perjury. Our guests did a lot of teeth sucking and shaking of heads at that point. They were quite interested to know if we knew who your 'pal' was. I think he's in the sh*t mate. A lot deeper than he'd like to be.
 
#19
Might all turn on what 'your friend's' dodgy statement supported. If his correct/truthful evidence is main plank in a more serious offence, he "might" get off relatively lightly. If the prosecution need his evidence they may well decide the big fish is better catch. The investigators would not want to take the chance that he agrees the date he gave was wrong but says he is now so confused that he cannot remember what the right date was. Obviously, the false stuff will be made known to defence as part of discovery process but is of little use to them.
Again, 'your friend's' past service performance will count when the main dust cloud settles. If he is Hoon's gift to army performance, ways and means will be found to keep him in employment. I would not bet on it but officer country is a strange world. I would stick a few books down the seat of my trousers prior to going to discuss it with the boss.
 
#20
As i posted before

If your mate has
attempted to play a part in influencing the minds of those whose duty may require them to consider the whole document which would be likely to play a part in influencing a decision.
and

To deceive is to induce a man to believe that a thing is true which is false and which the person practising the deceit knows or believes to be false.
That would also include a failure to make or any document or record at all
.

If your mate has back dated an Official form, what ever it is, with the intent to do the above. he should come clean now. The reason for this is if your mate ends up in court and when in the dock has to explain why he signed a date on an official document that did not happen, without evidence to back up that an act did take place at the martial time, for example an interview book (tell him not to even think of making one up now) then he could be looking at 7 years for perjury and some very unhappy people at the MoD needing to speak to him again on the matter. Oh and I forgot to mention Press frenzy front page stuff

here is the legal definsion of Perjury

perjury
The offence of deliberately making a false statement on oath (or affirmation) when appearing as a witness in legal proceedings, on a point material to the question at issue. In Britain and the USA it is punishable by a fine, imprisonment, or both.

or here

1.--(1) If any person lawfully sworn as a witness or as an interpreter in a judicial proceeding wilfully makes a statement material in that proceeding which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be guilty of perjury, and shall, on conviction thereof on indictment, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years, or to a fine or to both such imprisonment and fine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Threads