Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Alleged SAS War Crimes Report

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Longer than the ADF might want to wait before taking other action

Agreed. One would have thought that they'd want to take immediate action, given that they've identified issues with their premier unit. Institutional problems need to be sorted ASAP rather than waiting for trials to conclude even if the SASR commanders knew that would only take a year or two.

As it happens, limited action has already been going on for years.
 
"We"?? One poster mentioned 10 years, once. You've gone on about 10 years multiple times. I've said "years" throughout. Years. Quite a long time. Longer than the ADF might want to wait before taking other action. Years. More than months. Years.

Actually he mentioned it more than once.

Then someone which an alleged legal background continued with the years theme to justify why the CDF should blanket punish people publicly.
 

BLU-97

Old-Salt
Don't forget to 'social distance.' In other words don't get creepily close to all those hot Aussie blonde birds in their tiny bikini's you old lech!
That's the best thing about Nippers (Junior surf sports), lots and lots of MILFs on a beach at one time. What could be wrong with that?
 
It "could" take 50 years, anyone can make up any figure to justify the CDF openingly saying hes disbanding a unit and taking away a citation?
I appreciate the impulse to come up with anything contrary to the consensus, but the ADF awarded the citation and the ADF (a national force not subject to the law of ARRSE) hath taken away. I have a feeling that forming or disbanding units might be their call too.
 

BLU-97

Old-Salt
I don’t think you are correct there. The evidence given to the Brereton enquiry (or any other Royal Commission style Enquiry) cannot be used cannot be used in court because it was not obtained in accordance with the rules for collecting evidence or by people empowered to take evidence in criminal cases (ie the Police). Moreover, the soldiers were told that their evidence cannot be used; it’s inadmissible not tainted.

The witnesses were not, however, offered an amnesty or protection from prosecution. It is now a matter for the AFP to investigate the incidents as alleged crimes and take evidence accordingly.

The same thing has happened / is happening with the Royal Commissions in to institutional response to child sex a abuse and the one in to banking.
Not quite true. This is straight from the report. The evidence can't be used against the individual that gave it, it can be used in the trial of a third party.

USE AND DERIVATIVE USE IMMUNITIES

It is important to observe that the immunities preclude only the admission in evidence in court proceedings of information given to the Inquiry by a witness (and anything obtained as a direct or indirect consequence) against that witness. They do not preclude the admission in evidence in court proceedings of information given to the Inquiry by a witness (and anything obtained as a direct or indirect consequence) against any other person – including another person who was also an Inquiry witness. Thus, to use what will become a familiar example, if PTE X gives information to the Inquiry that he unlawfully killed a prisoner, and did so under the direction of CPL Z, the information given to the Inquiry by PTE X (and anything obtained as a direct or indirect consequence) is inadmissible in any prosecution of PTE X; but it is not inadmissible in any prosecution of CPL Z. This means that decisions will have to be made, ultimately by prosecuting authorities, as to whether X or Z should be prosecuted.
 

nice guy

Old-Salt
So two complete Australian Corps of five divisions mutinied en mass? Must be some secret history that you have read then because I have never heard of it. Australians did have a desertion rate six times higher than British, Canadian, New Zealand and South African troops. This was because they didn't have the death penalty as the ultimate sanction.

Never heard of this. Most Australian aircrew in the UK were in mixed crews - British, Australian, Canadian and New Zealanders in RAF squadrons. Canadians had a higher indiscipline rate than Australians.

The Brereton report has found no credible evidence of this.

When has he ever said this?



@IrishGuard Can i make a suggestion put an R on the end of the SAS title, so there's no confusion with the Brit or Kiwis
 
Last edited:
It "could" take 50 years, anyone can make up any figure to justify the CDF openingly saying hes disbanding a unit and taking away a citation?
You pulled that 50 out of the bottom of the probability barrel didn't you?
 
Not quite true. This is straight from the report. The evidence can't be used against the individual that gave it, it can be used in the trial of a third party.

USE AND DERIVATIVE USE IMMUNITIES

It is important to observe that the immunities preclude only the admission in evidence in court proceedings of information given to the Inquiry by a witness (and anything obtained as a direct or indirect consequence) against that witness. They do not preclude the admission in evidence in court proceedings of information given to the Inquiry by a witness (and anything obtained as a direct or indirect consequence) against any other person – including another person who was also an Inquiry witness. Thus, to use what will become a familiar example, if PTE X gives information to the Inquiry that he unlawfully killed a prisoner, and did so under the direction of CPL Z, the information given to the Inquiry by PTE X (and anything obtained as a direct or indirect consequence) is inadmissible in any prosecution of PTE X; but it is not inadmissible in any prosecution of CPL Z. This means that decisions will have to be made, ultimately by prosecuting authorities, as to whether X or Z should be prosecuted.
That clause specifically refers to the evidence given to the enquiry. It does not refer to evidence subsequently obtained by a properly constituted police enquiry. There is nothing in the enquiry report that provides witnesses immunity from prosecution; it simply defines how the evidence obtained by the enquiry can and can’t be used.

Thus in your example, Private X can be investigated by the Police and subsequently charged. The Police cannot use the evidence that he gave to the enquiry against him; they have to properly obtain their own evidence. They could in theory use the evidence obtained from Private X by the enquiry against Corporal Z, but it would likely be considered as tainted evidence.

That last point on tainted evidence is important. If and when the police investigate Private X and Corporal X they will interview under caution with legal representation present. They are quite likely to give a less full account under caution than they have done to the enquiry. The prosecution will only be able to use evidence from the enquiry in accordance with the rules you highlighted and if they do, it won’t have the same weight as the police evidence.

Exactly the same thing has happened with the child sex abuse Royal Commission.
 
I appreciate the impulse to come up with anything contrary to the consensus, but the ADF awarded the citation and the ADF (a national force not subject to the law of ARRSE) hath taken away. I have a feeling that forming or disbanding units might be their call too.
Correct. And 2 Sqn has been removed from the ORBAT rather than disbanded. A new squadron is to be constituted, AIUI.
 

BLU-97

Old-Salt
That clause specifically refers to the evidence given to the enquiry. It does not refer to evidence subsequently obtained by a properly constituted police enquiry. There is nothing in the enquiry report that provides witnesses immunity from prosecution; it simply defines how the evidence obtained by the enquiry can and can’t be used.

Thus in your example, Private X can be investigated by the Police and subsequently charged. The Police cannot use the evidence that he gave to the enquiry against him; they have to properly obtain their own evidence. They could in theory use the evidence obtained from Private X by the enquiry against Corporal Z, but it would likely be considered as tainted evidence.

That last point on tainted evidence is important. If and when the police investigate Private X and Corporal X they will interview under caution with legal representation present. They are quite likely to give a less full account under caution than they have done to the enquiry. The prosecution will only be able to use evidence from the enquiry in accordance with the rules you highlighted and if they do, it won’t have the same weight as the police evidence.

Exactly the same thing has happened with the child sex abuse Royal Commission.
Bob, you previously said:

I don’t think you are correct there. The evidence given to the Brereton enquiry (or any other Royal Commission style Enquiry) cannot be used in court because it was not obtained in accordance with the rules for collecting evidence or by people empowered to take evidence in criminal cases (ie the Police). Moreover, the soldiers were told that their evidence cannot be used; it’s inadmissible not tainted.

Bottom line is that it can. The soldiers were quite clear on how it could be used. Of course the Police are going to attempt to gather their own independent evidence and the DPP will want to build a cases were the testimony is corroborated by a witness as with any other type of case. The report makes recommendations about the use of evidence (which the police/DPP can ignore completely if they want) around the options: e.g.

The Inquiry recommends that no action be taken in respect of [redacted] and that he be granted immunity from prosecution should he agree to give evidence for the Crown in any relevant prosecution.

If X choses to not to cooperate (which is obviously possible and potentially quite likely in some cases), then his evidence can still be used and he can be put on the stand. You're correct that it will likely carry less value if he chooses not to corroborate it in court, but it is no less admissible.
 
Bob, you previously said:

I don’t think you are correct there. The evidence given to the Brereton enquiry (or any other Royal Commission style Enquiry) cannot be used in court because it was not obtained in accordance with the rules for collecting evidence or by people empowered to take evidence in criminal cases (ie the Police). Moreover, the soldiers were told that their evidence cannot be used; it’s inadmissible not tainted.

Bottom line is that it can. The soldiers were quite clear on how it could be used. Of course the Police are going to attempt to gather their own independent evidence and the DPP will want to build a cases were the testimony is corroborated by a witness as with any other type of case. The report makes recommendations about the use of evidence (which the police/DPP can ignore completely if they want) around the options: e.g.

The Inquiry recommends that no action be taken in respect of [redacted] and that he be granted immunity from prosecution should he agree to give evidence for the Crown in any relevant prosecution.

If X choses to not to cooperate (which is obviously possible and potentially quite likely in some cases), then his evidence can still be used and he can be put on the stand. You're correct that it will likely carry less value if he chooses not to corroborate it in court, but it is no less admissible.
I stand corrected. Thank you.
 
Correct. And 2 Sqn has been removed from the ORBAT rather than disbanded. A new squadron is to be constituted, AIUI.

To be perfectly honest, I scratch my head over that considering that in all probability of a lot of the personnel from 2 Sqn would constitute a large component of whatever the new Sqn is called.
 
I don’t think you are correct there. The evidence given to the Brereton enquiry (or any other Royal Commission style Enquiry) cannot be used cannot be used in court because it was not obtained in accordance with the rules for collecting evidence or by people empowered to take evidence in criminal cases (ie the Police). Moreover, the soldiers were told that their evidence cannot be used; it’s inadmissible not tainted.

Its not the person collecting the evidence but that it was obtained under a coercive power with a person's right to silence removed. This is the same as evidence in a Coroners Court cannot be used in any subsequent criminal trial as the Coroner can require a person to give evidence against their interests.

Regarding future action I got the impression from Thursday's announcement that certain actions were going to be immediately implemented such as the curtailment of certain officers careers and the reorganisation of special operations command. I suspect that no longer will special forces have their own play pen but will be subject to army command as a whole. The only long-winded part will be possible prosecutions as they are essentially starting from scratch with gathering of admissible evidence.

On another matter, 4 Squadron was raised in October 1965 but disbanded in 1967 according to D.M. Horner in his history of the SASR, "SAS Phantoms of the Jungle". I think 2 Squadron was also previously disbanded on the withdrawal from Vietnam.
 
Last edited:
You pulled that 50 out of the bottom of the probability barrel didn't you?

I pulled a number that "could" happen. Soldier F is close to it.
The point is anyone can make up any number to justify their point.
 
I appreciate the impulse to come up with anything contrary to the consensus, but the ADF awarded the citation and the ADF (a national force not subject to the law of ARRSE) hath taken away. I have a feeling that forming or disbanding units might be their call too.

No shit sherlock, but you might have thought he would would wait until criminal charges were brought, especially as the citation makes zero difference to the running of the army, but it does indicate people in that unit are guilty of something.
Still, it shows he is "doing something" and thats all that is important, fair trials and all that bollocks dont matter.
Shame him and his predecessors actually prevent it from happening in the first place or at least stop it as soon as it became apparent what was going on, but hey ho.
 
It's different to the other squadrons.

From a very quick Google, you can see that four operational squadrons are mentioned here in an official doc: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=2fca4f86-f011-44da-82ce-b169fa168ae4&subId=353034&ved=2ahUKEwi5msrak5LtAhUpQUEAHcyiAiA4ChAWMAl6BAgBEAE&usg=AOvVaw3kApxrbhakehJ9oq9hINjC

@QRK2, please stop putting dumb tags on factually correct posts. It's getting pretty tedious. You clearly have an issue with me so please PM me so we can sort it out; sadly your account is locked down so I can't send one to you.
Thanks for that Caecilius, but page 58/59 of the 81 page document you linked seem to state 'Operational Support Squadron (basically a Training Squadron) is one of the 4 Squadrons mentioned in the Orbat. It shows the new buildings being RHQ, 1sqn, 2sqn, 3sqn.
 

Latest Threads

Top