Army abuse trial collapses

I rather suspect that it is more an adopted posture handed down from national service days. I would venture to suggest that a modern day soldier could complete their entire service without so much as seeing a MP.... unless of course they were absolutely determined to do so.
I agree but a few years ago when I was the Guard Commander there was a soldier who had not come home from work on time and the RMP walked straight into the block against my better wishes and got the aforementioned solider and took him home after gleefully informing his wife that he had been caught in the company of a female. The GSM was from from happy as I had already reported that the soldier was seen in the block from the the BOS.
Now now gents, let's not be too harsh or hasty on the Monkeys.

They could be RAF Coppers, a whole new level of bellthronkrey.
They are the feckers that did me!
 
Last edited:
Hence the problem. The codes of conduct for safe detention is every police officers responsibility. The custody sergeant is also the PACE sergeant and is ultimately responsible for everything that happens in the custody suite. Health and welfare concerns are the responsibility of the HCP that's also in the suite and who will advise the custody sergeant in best safe practice. That's what should be happening in any cells, military or not.

Maybe then there's also a case for removing the military from the custodial chain in anything more than an advisory capacity.
As Ive already mentioned, custody specialists now run all military detention facilities. The Military Provost Staff.
 
Typical Monkey, you lift the guy then wash your hands when handing over to the guard commander. Did you just take the soldier into the quardroom and say to the guard commander "Here is one of yours, do what you will" or did you actually place a report on said soldier?
Are you hard of thinking. Those were / are the Regs. Pished squaddies were got off the street and dropped their lines and told to make their own way back past their guard hut. The twat that broke the collar bone of a CPL in an unprovoked attack from the rear got handed over with the paperwork. See the difference?
 
Gosh, your (I know) correct. My grammatical error, on a little read website absolves the monkeys of their utter incompetence.

We'll (I know) done you. You've got them off the hook

The world will now look upon the monkeys as the pinnacle of law enforcement with awe and envy. You must be proud

You left the full stop off.
 
Is the PM of sufficient rank/have direct access to the top echelons or is he/she just a buckshee colonel holding down a staff job?
The Provost Marshal used to be a very influential officer with access to the top of the army.
As you say most of the internal discipline is done at unit and sub unit level so maintaining an outdated police force which is showing itself as unfit for purpose beggars belief.
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
The offences under discussion appear to be ordinary criminal acts (assaults etc) as far as UK law is concerned and happened on UK soil. IMHO they should have been investigated by the local plod.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
Are you hard of thinking. Those were / are the Regs. Pished squaddies were got off the street and dropped their lines and told to make their own way back past their guard hut. The twat that broke the collar bone of a CPL in an unprovoked attack from the rear got handed over with the paperwork. See the difference?
I never heard of one instance of that happening to any of the guys in my Bn. If the gentlemen with the red hats gave a lift to any of ours it was straight to the Gd Comd.

Mind you, in the majority of instances you guys just turned round and left to civpol, who were indeed good at dropping off.
 
I'm opening myself up for a lot of flak here. However I'm not going to comment on this specific case but the overall makeup and function of the RMP by means of shedding light, and dispelling a few myths and 'easy fixes' that people are throwing about.

1. RMP and the Service Prosecuting Authority work hand in hand. When we feel the Evidential Sufficiency Test is met, we refer for charge. This is then sent to SPA, or Div Legal depending on the offence. Offences of proscribed circs - abuse of subordinates will go direct to SPA.

The SPA, like the CPS apply a 'full code' test, is it in the public/service interest to prosecute? Is there a reasonable chance of prosecution?

If the answer to both of these is 'yes' SPA then will the file, frame the charge and charge the individual. They would've take the investigation to court, and for it to be a runner, they feel they have a reasonable chance of success. Any shortfall/lines of enquiry are then raised by the prosecutor and sent back as an evidence request.

2. RMP need to police. We are the only policing agency capable of doing what we do. You need experience in the firm base to police on ops. Despite the focus on ops and ex these days, and the lack of experience resulting from not doing as much as we used to, we still need this to be able to investigate overseas. I have worked with both MPD and HOPF in Afg police mentoring. Both are not set up, or trained to police in an austere environment nor do they have the jurisdiction. Military Police can police overseas, getting one nations civil police to do that leads to all sorts of political and diplomatic issues.

3. SIB are trained to HO standard in all of its specialist quals. All SIOs, interviewers, etc are trained by HOPF.

4. MDP could/should investigate. (You're taking the piss aren't you?) In all seriousness they don't see themselves in this role, the uniform side are purely CT, and CID are an intelligence function. They focus on protecting MOD reputation and funds/materiel (frauds etc).

5. HOPF could/should investigate. Very much an option, however HOPF are already protesting that they're getting an influx of thousands of (manpower intensive) extra soldiers into their counties with no uplift in manpower to police them. They are leaning on RMP to perform this duty (as we should be doing). @wetsmonkey and I have spoken about this previously. HOPF will almost always turn round and say, green-on-green behind the wire, this is 100% your job. There will always be a discussion over jurisdiction however they're as strapped as we are.

6. PM(A) and the RMP do not and have never fallen under *any* command of the AGC. PM(A) works directly to CGS and we are wholly independent of the CoC.

7. Every decision made by a SIO on any investigation is recorded with rationale in the casefile diary/policy book. This can then be scrutinised by prosecutors/CoC.

8. RMP should be disbanded. See point 2. We may not be popular but we are necessary.

9. Court cases collapse; sometimes spectacularly, sometimes quietly. It happens frequently, but on such a high profile one such as this it was always going hit the headlines in a big way.

10. Root-and-Branch review of the RMP. RMP is fit for purpose; we're undermanned, unhappy, and getting pulled from pillar to post supporting whatever is flavour of the month for the Army (like everyone else), but we get results in CM or summary dealing every day of the week. We are actually pretty good by HOPF standards too, when I speak to my HO opposite numbers they have files rejected by CPS on an extremely frequent basis (sometimes up to 50-70%) of the time. I have never had a file rejected by SPA.
The irritation is the RMP always try for the Gold standard, when the tin one sometimes suffices. Again speaking to HOPF colleagues they are astounded as to how much work we put in to a job which they would pay lip-service to - which is why the current case is so frustrating.

I understand the frustration and anger of the service community, and we're pretty frustrated ourselves. I know the Officer in question and have nothing but respect for her. I hope I've managed to clarify some points and given some indication of how we work.
 
I understand the frustration and anger of the service community, and we're pretty frustrated ourselves. I know the Officer in question and have nothing but respect for her.
I surely understand and agree on much of what you say, but the fact remains that the Judge in this case was amazed at the ineptness of the investigation. The officer in charge of it bears responsibility for the "seriously flawed" and "totally blinkered approach" to the investigation.

I see that an inquiry of some sort is to be carried out by the RMP and Service Prosecuting Authorities themselves, "to ensure that lessons are learned". It seems that the lessons of the past have not.
 
I'm opening myself up for a lot of flak here. However I'm not going to comment on this specific case but the overall makeup and function of the RMP by means of shedding light, and dispelling a few myths and 'easy fixes' that people are throwing about.

1. RMP and the Service Prosecuting Authority work hand in hand. When we feel the Evidential Sufficiency Test is met, we refer for charge. This is then sent to SPA, or Div Legal depending on the offence. Offences of proscribed circs - abuse of subordinates will go direct to SPA.

The SPA, like the CPS apply a 'full code' test, is it in the public/service interest to prosecute? Is there a reasonable chance of prosecution?

If the answer to both of these is 'yes' SPA then will the file, frame the charge and charge the individual. They would've take the investigation to court, and for it to be a runner, they feel they have a reasonable chance of success. Any shortfall/lines of enquiry are then raised by the prosecutor and sent back as an evidence request.

2. RMP need to police. We are the only policing agency capable of doing what we do. You need experience in the firm base to police on ops. Despite the focus on ops and ex these days, and the lack of experience resulting from not doing as much as we used to, we still need this to be able to investigate overseas. I have worked with both MPD and HOPF in Afg police mentoring. Both are not set up, or trained to police in an austere environment nor do they have the jurisdiction. Military Police can police overseas, getting one nations civil police to do that leads to all sorts of political and diplomatic issues.

3. SIB are trained to HO standard in all of its specialist quals. All SIOs, interviewers, etc are trained by HOPF.

4. MDP could/should investigate. (You're taking the piss aren't you?) In all seriousness they don't see themselves in this role, the uniform side are purely CT, and CID are an intelligence function. They focus on protecting MOD reputation and funds/materiel (frauds etc).

5. HOPF could/should investigate. Very much an option, however HOPF are already protesting that they're getting an influx of thousands of (manpower intensive) extra soldiers into their counties with no uplift in manpower to police them. They are leaning on RMP to perform this duty (as we should be doing). @wetsmonkey and I have spoken about this previously. HOPF will almost always turn round and say, green-on-green behind the wire, this is 100% your job. There will always be a discussion over jurisdiction however they're as strapped as we are.

6. PM(A) and the RMP do not and have never fallen under *any* command of the AGC. PM(A) works directly to CGS and we are wholly independent of the CoC.

7. Every decision made by a SIO on any investigation is recorded with rationale in the casefile diary/policy book. This can then be scrutinised by prosecutors/CoC.

8. RMP should be disbanded. See point 2. We may not be popular but we are necessary.

9. Court cases collapse; sometimes spectacularly, sometimes quietly. It happens frequently, but on such a high profile one such as this it was always going hit the headlines in a big way.

10. Root-and-Branch review of the RMP. RMP is fit for purpose; we're undermanned, unhappy, and getting pulled from pillar to post supporting whatever is flavour of the month for the Army (like everyone else), but we get results in CM or summary dealing every day of the week. We are actually pretty good by HOPF standards too, when I speak to my HO opposite numbers they have files rejected by CPS on an extremely frequent basis (sometimes up to 50-70%) of the time. I have never had a file rejected by SPA.
The irritation is the RMP always try for the Gold standard, when the tin one sometimes suffices. Again speaking to HOPF colleagues they are astounded as to how much work we put in to a job which they would pay lip-service to - which is why the current case is so frustrating.

I understand the frustration and anger of the service community, and we're pretty frustrated ourselves. I know the Officer in question and have nothing but respect for her. I hope I've managed to clarify some points and given some indication of how we work.
Well, blow my bugle till it tootles...that's cleared a few things up..

You're still fookin 'orrible monkeys though..:cheers:
 
I wonder how many civil cases collapse due to civ pol errors, I would wager it is a much higher percentage than that of service police investigations.

MB
 
I wonder how many civil cases collapse due to civ pol errors, I would wager it is a much higher percentage than that of service police investigations.

MB
Indeed, the recent disclosure mess caused by the Met is having far reaching ripples on everyone's work.
 
Indeed, the recent disclosure mess caused by the Met is having far reaching ripples on everyone's work.
Which is why I held back from earlier expressing the opinion that the sort of "mistakes" described wouldn't have been made by a civilian uniformed constable.
Given the glaring lack of relevant training and the recently publicised failings of O.I.C.s, supervisors and CPS re. disclosure though.........
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top