• This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
    Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
    Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live

Bringing the Army into Disrepute???

#1
An individual commits an offence and is charged by the civvy police....why can the Army still charge that individual with "Bringing the Army into disrepute"? Who decides how and why the Army has "been brought into disrepute" or is it as it seems, that soldiers can be charged with the same offence twice, just in a different guise. Employers in civvy street have very little, if any, jurisdiction over their employees outside the workplace. How long can we still be treated differently??? Why can soldier's careers and postings be affected by these decisions???
 
#2
Employers will not charge an individual with bringing their firm into disrepute, they simply sack them, eg a Salrs rep with a ban for drunken driving is no use to a civvi firm.

It's quite difficult to sack a soldier (honest) unless the Courts give a custodial sentence, so the Army takes another line.

There are also some offences that will always affect ones career, military or civilian. Breaches of trust, an interest in children etc.

The answer is not to be a naughty boy in the first place.
 
#3
..why can the Army still charge that individual with "Bringing the Army into disrepute"?
Mil law and AGAIs. It is part of the conditions of service.

Who decides how and why the Army has "been brought into disrepute"
Army Legal Service normally.

How long can we still be treated differently
As long as you are in the Army ! We are different which is why we are so good ! We have the highest standards of professionalism, integrity and honesty, and what we do not want is someone who is tarnishing the reputation of our Army.

If you do not agree, then you can always leave and become a civilian where lying, cheating and behaving in an unsocial manner is the norm.
 
#4
world cup, hooligan charged lost his job as a post man.

Not just the armed Forces james_pugh. :)
 
V

vespa

Guest
#7
that post man got his job back on appeal backedby the union as he hasnt been convicted of any offence only charged and was susequently dropped due to lack of evidence
 
#9
my point exactly. you are not charged with the initial offence twice. You receive your punishment for that and then you get charged by the Army for bringing them into disrepute.
The point with the Postman - He didn't have his posting cancelled or his promotion suspended.
 
#10
I think that you will find that there is a difference between disciplinary punishments and administrative sanctions.  For the definitive answer, read AGAI 67, it is very clear exactly how drink driving, breaches of the Values and Standards, etc  are to be treated.  

"Administrative action for misconduct is distinct from disciplinary action under the Service Discipline Acts.  Administrative action is taken for a different purpose, using different rules, different standards of proof and different powers.  It is action taken in the best interests of the Service in order to safeguard its efficiency and operational effectiveness....It may be taken in addition to disciplinary action, or following prosecution in a civil court, whether the accused is convicted or not.  Administrative action in these circumstances does not amount to double jeopardy, nor should it be regarded as oppressive or unfair in principle.  It is consistent with civilian employment practice and the regulation of other professions."

In the main most soldiers who undergo administartive action have had a laspe in their conduct which necessitates a posting.  This is predominantly because their position as a JNCO or officer is less tenable with other soldiers who know how they have erred.  This does not always affect their career (I am not even sure if the rebukes/displeasures are atually taken into account at MCM, although they are kept in your P file).

At the end of the day you signed up to accepting military law in all its various forms and it is this that makes us a bred apart, exactly as Ramillies points out.  If you cannot take the heat, keep out of the fire.... ;)
 
#11
I :mad: but look what happens when a Officer F**ks up
Different story then ::)
 
#12
but look what happens when a Officer F**ks up
Different story then  
It certainly is because the rules are stricter for when an officer digresses. An officer should know better and hence the penalty is greater.
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#14
Untrue Ramillies and well you know it.   The comparison of two recent Courts Martials testifies to that.

Courts Martial A:   Infantry Sgt is sentenced to 3 and a half years custody  and dismissed from the Service for indecently assaulting trainee soldiers under his care.  He plead guilty.

Courts Martial B: An RMP Captain is dismissed from the Service for indecently assaulting men under his command and others.  He denied the charges.  despite that, he was convicted.

Both have committed the same offence yet the OR gets a three and a half year sentence before his dismissal.   Why was the officer not given a custodial sentence?

Any arguemnt as to loss of gratuities and pensions is nonsense, where is the equity in those sentences?  If your claim that officers are more severly dealt with were true, why can the officer now walk the streets, whilst classed as a sex offender and seek emloyment, be with his family and freinds whilst the OR sits in a prison cell for the next three and a half years?

Both deserved jail, one got it, the other didn't.

Why is that?
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#15
As for bringing the Army into disrepute, it will depend upon the circumstances.  For instance:

A.   If you were on a CAPE tour and whilst 'recruiting' you snotted someone, you may well find that after the civilian police have charged you for assault, your CO may wish to charge you under S69 of the AA55, for bring ing Army into disrepute.  You would be guilty of having done so, as you were on duty in uniform in the public eye and whther you agree or not, you have discredited the Service.  That charge has nothing to do with the assault charge and is a seperate matter, so you will have little defence.

B.  On the other hand, if you are off duty, down town in civilian attire, and you snot someone, you may be charged with assault by the police,but your CO cannot charge you under S69.  If he does get a lawyer.

If however, you are in a situation such as B above, and you were to shout your mouth off about what unit you were or the fact that you are a soldier, before, during or after you snot your target, you have in fact brought the military into disrepute, by identifying the fact that you are a soldier and therefore a representative of the Army.  I think your CO could actually get that one past.

So, the solution is, if you plan to snot someone, do it in civvies and don't tell him that you are a soldier.
 
#16
Why is that?
Both these cases were actually quite different and it would be wrong of me to discuss this in open forum.

The principle of an officer receiving a greater punishment for a similar offence when committed by an OR remains. Indeed  there have been cases where the officer receives a punishment and an OR does not. I know of countless examples where a SNCO has been reduced in rank, and the officer for a similar offence has had to resign.

It is all too easy to say that officers gets off and ORs get punished very severely. The whole process including sentencing is open to judicial review by a civilian body of judges and if there was even a whiff of what you claim, they would take action. Indeed you can just imagine the media impact !
 
#17
Without knowing the full facts of either case, there is a fundamental difference in sexually assualting men under one's command and an instructor sexually assaulting recruits.  In both cases, I agree that they are deserving of jail, but in the case of an instructor in whom a huge degree of trust is placed and bearing in mind the impressionable age of the recruits, it is completely abhorrent and more deserving of a stiffer penalty.

I also believe that in future Courts-Martial may have WO2s and WO1s sitting as members of the board as opposed to just officers at the moment.  While I firmly believe that there is nothing wrong with the current system, you may view this as a definite improvement.

And as for officers being treated differently, as regards admin punishment again read the AGAI, the rank of those involved certainly is taken into account.  For example, a soldier is far more likely to get away with drink driving than an officer, if for no other reason than it will probably be his CO who considers the case as opposed to the Brigadier.  

Similarly with when two individuals breach the Values and Standards, the senior ranks are consistently treated harsher than other ranks especially if there is a thought of abuse of rank or priviledge.
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#18
Where I do agree that any person placed in a position of trust, such as the Sgt, who commits such offences, most definately should be incarcerated, I disagree with the differences which you (obviously officers) have placed between both cases.

The officer was RMP ( a position of trust?) and would no doubtt have been involved in the investigation of such matters during his career. How many sex offenders had he locked away in his time?  He was also in a position of trust by virtue of the fact that he was an officer and responsible for his men, the same men he assaulted.  He also assaulted men outside his own capbadge.  

The Sgt plead guilty whilst the officer denied all, having to be proven guilty in Court (An Officer and a Gentleman? Doubtful).  Were his victims not as affected by his crimes upon them as the victims of the Sgt?

A three and a half year sentence is a substantial difference.  The offences under law were identical albeit the surrounding circumstances were slightly different. Surely you cannot seriously consider this equitable?

As for discussing this matter in open forum, you can.  As both have been convicted, they have no foundation for complaint.  It's what the media do all the time, despite any later appeal submitted from the accused.
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#19
As for WO's sitting on Courts Martial, they will only do so for the trials of ORs.  They will not be allowed to sit on the trials of officers.
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#20
Drop Short, the AGAi can say what it wishes, it is not law. Furthermore your example of drink driving, would not be dealt with by the CO, it would be dealt with in Magistrates Court, where your rank has no recognition. The officer may appear in front of the Brigade Commander later, but that would only be for the fact that he is an officer.  A WO would be treat exactly the same.

As for the senior rank, I presume you mean by position and not a SNCO, being treat more harshly, this is precisely my point, he has not been.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top