Armys internal Complaints policy in the Dock

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by fooboy, Oct 17, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Very shabby article I must say :? this was not from the Scum??? any links? However, service Redress in the press again no shock here :roll:

    How bullying is perceived by one could be perceived different by another, and there are times when Timmy will play the System, just to get out when he feels he dose not want to play soldiers anymore. However, there are a number of disturbing cases that are coming to the attention of the courts lately, and it's not doing the forces Reputation any favours

    Internal disciplinary proceedings such as those held by self-regulating organisations or professions will be held to fall within the scope of proceedings governed by art 6 of the H.R.A, where they affect the rights of the individual) for example when a redress has been on going for over 18 months. If this happens MOD legal don't have a leg to stand on.

    Remember ALS, and civ solicitors are there to get the best deal for there client, so I would not be shocked when soldiers come up against a brick wall at times if allegations are against the Chain Of Command, Promotion or TOS. The system will not allow you to Question to much, so Soldiers have to get a solicitor to knock the "wall" down for them. Can prove to be very Expensive

    From my experience Appeals Wing are very good at asking only choice questions and try to leave out the important or damming one's
    what the Board don't see, they will not ask.(Blinkers)
    This way the Army Board can only reach a decision based on the evidence that Appeals Wing allow and the choice questions asked.
    one other common point, when the brief is disclosed to the soldier and comments are made from the soldier/solicitor, the norm for Glasgow is to only show his comments but not to conduct further investigations if possible, even when new evidence submitted smacks them in the face and contradicts their own brief or evidence from other parties. remember to have got to Glasgow the Redress would have been investigated by at the very least to levels. at these first levels, the complainant dose not get disclosure, so has no idea if false allegations are being made towards him/her. The Anderson principles that was made reference to in the article was about the need for full disclosure and both parties being on a level playing field. Sadly after that ruling the way the anderson case was open to interpretation by the MOD is another thing and will quite rightly be scrutinised by the courts

    The process should be open and not behind closed doors, there are not to many oral hearings at Glasgow and only the board can allow for it to happen. I think there needs to be a change.
  2. One of the things that always annoys me about such cases is the mixture of ignorance and arrogance that characterises those trying to defend the status quo. Like it or lump it the law of the land applies to the MoD and services and if the MoD wished to avoid losing in the courts it needs to ensure that its internal procedures comply with the law and that they are followed.

    If current law is not compatible with military efficency then someone very senior in the MoD has got it wrong during the consultation phase and not asked for an exemption for the military to be put in the legislation - as defence is usually the only excuse accepted for such exemptions. There is no excuse for procedures not to comply with the law - civvy companies keep up to date as they know if they don't they'll get taken to the cleaners in court. So why is the MoD uniquely incompetent in this area ? And then we have the failure to comply - again, why don't people's careers get affected by this sort of thing ?

    The problem is that measures put in place after such high-profile mistakes tend to over-correct, and some scrotes get away with murder in the wake.
  3. One of the main problems as alluded to by my learned friend is that justice delayed is justice denied. It seems that too much takes too long (not only legal look at medals, as someone said the police can issue me my own personalised speeding ticket within a week!) and this puts the MOD in an unwinnable position.
  4. "One of the most senior woman Sikh soldier in the Army"

    Uhm, head above parapet, bet there arn't six Sikh women soldiers, very few Male Sikh soldiers, in fact never saw one in my 23 years.
    Strange how so many of these case's seem to have sum sort of race angle. The Army never was an easy life but know sum folk seem to have found a way to make it a profitable life.
  5. Correct extrader. And this is were the MOD continually fails to understand or even bothers correct. The days of dragging out a Redress in the hope the complaint will fall by the way side have long gone. There are at least 18 cases of redress that i have heard of that have taken 3 to 4 years before the Army Board viewed them. That is unacceptable and if every case was to go before a Judicial Review most just on the merit of Time delay by AAW will win, even if the complaint being redressed in the first place, was found wanting. If the system was more transparent and fair we would not have half of the problems that we have today
  6. Not all are based on race Jonwilly, however if the redress was more open and up front, there would not be as much scope for a profitable life.
  7. Agree not ALL but will you conceed many ?
    Race an area where the Law is Strong and Very PC and PROFITABLE.
  8. Coming from a civvy background I'd say that's only true if the organisation concerned drops the ball. If your procedures are up to date, fair and they're followed then it's highly unlikely that you'll get into trouble. If you dig into the details of the cases that tend to hit the papers then you'll usually find some mistakes by the organisation concerned are at the root of it. That doesn't make it fair or sensible of course. Taking years over a redress is a truly stupid thing to do. It's manifestly unfair and regardless of the merits of a case will give the advantage to the soldier.
  9. The trouble with all these cases is that they are one of the many responsibilities of commanders and G1 staffs at all levels. We very often simply don't have the staff, or the staff don't have the expertise to deal with them. We have not reviewed establishments at various levels for years - does an Adjt deal with the same workload now as 10 years ago, or more? To answer this simply ask an Adjt when someone from a higher HQ last told him that such and such a return was no longer required, or that some other piece of his workload was being removed. Multiply that by 5 Adjts all saying the same thing in the last 10 years in a post - you get the picture. The same is true at bde level where there is one SO3 and the DCOS dealing with everything under the sun. There is only so much time in the day - do we wonder that we get it wrong? We do not have lawyers and expert HR departments at every level that can ensure that all complaints, many of which are completely spurious, are dealt with.

    That said, I have rarely come across a complaint / redress that could not have been avoided by some more careful leadership. Sometimes an embarassing apology and climb down from a position taken out of pride can avoid some hefty fallout. That and the need to do things formally as soon as something looks like it may get painful.
  10. I can't wait for the day when the Redress procedure is taken from the Army and given to an independant body.

    This has to be the thing we do worst - with sometimes devastating results.

    Bring on the Independant Commission.

  11. "Coming from a civvy background I'd say that's only true if the organisation concerned drops the ball"

    "manifestly unfair"

    Yes the Army is manifestly unfair. As the man said we kill people.
  12. I notice that the need for some external agency has been put forward in a few threads in recent months.

    Some nations have a "Parliamentary Commissioner for the Armed Forces". Created and controlled by statute, but answerable to Parliament rather than to the Government of the day. Can include seconded military personnel in the Commissioner's staff.

    Redress will be one of the areas to look out for in the forthcoming Armed Forces Bill.
  13. Has all this come from one Para NCO? Well done if so - my reading is that he was shafted.
  14. I don't think that's relevant to be honest. Three things:

    Current employment law applies to the Army. We may argue whether it should, but it does (objective conditions and all that). Consequently if you don't stick to the law you will lose when cases go to court. Would you rather spend the defence budget on losing court cases or something else ?

    Soldiers who present invalid cases may well win where they shouldn't because the system mismanages the process. Is that really what we want ? (Note that I'm not making any judgements on cases that have been mentioned so don't think I'm having a dig at anyone)

    One of the things that sets the Army apart from the rest of the society is that we aspire to deal with each other fairly and honestly. Get rid of that - as the mishandling of redress cases does - and we become a bunch of civvies who dress up in DPM. Not a good idea.