Interesting court martial on the horizon, General in the dock.

Truxx

LE
E
I suspect that the Defence Barrister will rip the Prosecution witnesses apart on the fact that the rules surrounding CEA are fiendishly complicated and that the Defendant was poorly advised by the people who deal with these things, and that nobody in the army understands the rules anyway.

The Prosecution witnesess will be in the dock for half a day each being cross examined by the Brief minutely on the rules, a copy of which the Brief will have in his possesion. After each witnesses being ripped a new one, and all contradicting each other; the Brief will say "I rest my case your honour". The General will not say anything, just sitting in the defendants box thinking about the large box of popcorn he will be munching tonight.

By the way, was the case investigated by the RMP/SIB?
Except the rules are pretty straightforward.
 
Good lord man, you wouldn't knowingly promote a chap who intended to send his children to a Comprehensive to General rank would you?

ETA Millfield?- you're having a giraffe, it doesn't even have a CCF.
Don't chaps have private incomes anymore. I thought he was former Rifles (although not a Green Jacket). Is a chap actually expected to live on his pay these days.
 
Let's not forget the trial resumes in the morning and no-one has been found guilty yet.
 
E
Except the rules are pretty straightforward.
and he’s a General.

’I’m just a simple soldier Sir I is’ doesn't really cut it as a defence when you wear Red tabs.
 
Yept, I am sure that will work when you are cross examined by a top class defence brief all morning in the witness stand.
They only get to ask the same question once and Judges get pretty impatient with fishing expeditions. The MoD can put together some decent witnesses too.
 
Yept, I am sure that will work when you are cross examined by a top class defence brief all morning in the witness stand.
Depends on who is in the dock, most lawyers are used to members of the public who arent normally in court. Anyone with a bit of experience/knowledge will **** them off.
 
You do know that the amount of CEA you get is the same whatever school they go to - it's £x per child*. If you want to send your kid to Eton, which will cost £x plus £y, you have to pay the £y yourself.

* Unless you send your child to a place that costs less than £x - in that case you have to pay at least 10% yourself.
I do, in which case it clearly favours the Maj Gen over the Sgt Maj.
 
I do, in which case it clearly favours the Maj Gen over the Sgt Maj.
The very few Sgt Majs, that is, who have children in the qualifying age bracket, and who are likely to serve long enough for said kid(s) to go all the way to 18 before dad leaves the army. 22 years and out keeps the numbers down, even these days, I woulda thought.
 

lextalionis

Old-Salt
The victim was the dependant of a British serviceman, and the case was ceded to British Military Police (either RMP or RAFP) accordingly.
Their suspect (serving personnel) was charged and tried through the military court system i.e. a court martial.
Courts in England and Wales (Scotland is separate again, as is NI), only have jurisdiction over cases within their areas.
One of the crucial points of the service justice system is to extend the law of England and Wales to areas not covered by the geographic designation.
This means persons, military or others covered under their law, can be dealt with in a court martial (other courts can happen). Covers Germany, Cyprus, and anywhere else military personnel are. With exception. Lots of exceptions.
That may well be true for most offences, but section 9 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 provides that murder or manslaughter committed by a British subject/citizen abroad may be tried in England (or Ireland) as if it had been committed in these islands: Offences Against the Person Act 1861

The service justice system is a quandary. It's possible that most specifically service offences could be dealt with by administrative action, or lay magistrates, and that more serious offences should be tried in the Crown Court with the benefit of a jury.

I imagine that the offence could have been tried in the Crown Court. There was no strict need, I think, to try it in a military court.
 
and he’s a General.

’I’m just a simple soldier Sir I is’ doesn't really cut it as a defence when you wear Red tabs.
It wouldn’t cut it without red tabs either but how would you know?!
 
Sadly the drill aspect if almost gone from CMs now, although soldiers salute the Judge before and after giving evidence for some reason.
They do not salute the judge. Depending on who/what you believe*, courtrooms are a place where the Crown exercises it’s power. If you are in a courtroom and the judge enters you will be asked to stand. Likewise the accused, if found guilty will be asked to stand on sentencing.
It‘s not about the judge, it‘s about the Coat of Arms on the wall. That’s the R v whomever part of the charge in any criminal case.
I would therefore expect any service person to salute in this case - they are paying the correct compliment to the highest authority.

*there are those who refuse to believe in the validity of the court. They still go to prison.
 
They do not salute the judge. Depending on who/what you believe*, courtrooms are a place where the Crown exercises it’s power. If you are in a courtroom and the judge enters you will be asked to stand. Likewise the accused, if found guilty will be asked to stand on sentencing.
It‘s not about the judge, it‘s about the Coat of Arms on the wall. That’s the R v whomever part of the charge in any criminal case.
I would therefore expect any service person to salute in this case - they are paying the correct compliment to the highest authority.

*there are those who refuse to believe in the validity of the court. They still go to prison.
Do they have their hat on in court? I never did while giving evidence as Plod.
 
The very few Sgt Majs, that is, who have children in the qualifying age bracket, and who are likely to serve long enough for said kid(s) to go all the way to 18 before dad leaves the army. 22 years and out keeps the numbers down, even these days, I woulda thought.
I thought a lot of Sgt Majors go on to LE commissions?
 
They do not salute the judge. Depending on who/what you believe*, courtrooms are a place where the Crown exercises it’s power. If you are in a courtroom and the judge enters you will be asked to stand. Likewise the accused, if found guilty will be asked to stand on sentencing.
It‘s not about the judge, it‘s about the Coat of Arms on the wall. That’s the R v whomever part of the charge in any criminal case.
I would therefore expect any service person to salute in this case - they are paying the correct compliment to the highest authority.

*there are those who refuse to believe in the validity of the court. They still go to prison.
The last two court martials that i was a witness at, I was told by the bloke (SNCO who had been jiffed) running the court admin to salute the judge before and after giving evidence.
I dont know if they meant the coat of arms but it was two separate occasions in two countries (UK and Germany).
 
Do they have their hat on in court? I never did while giving evidence as Plod.
3.22 Head-dress Head-dress is worn by all Service personnel in the courtroom at the beginning of the hearing until oaths are taken. The Judge Advocate gives instructions as to the removal and replacing of headdress when required. Head-dress is replaced and worn during the announcement of findings, during the passing of sentences and at the conclusion of a case when the judge and board leave the courtroom. The Court Usher uniquely keeps head-dress on throughout proceedings

 
That may well be true for most offences, but section 9 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 provides that murder or manslaughter committed by a British subject/citizen abroad may be tried in England (or Ireland) as if it had been committed in these islands: Offences Against the Person Act 1861

The service justice system is a quandary. It's possible that most specifically service offences could be dealt with by administrative action, or lay magistrates, and that more serious offences should be tried in the Crown Court with the benefit of a jury.

I imagine that the offence could have been tried in the Crown Court. There was no strict need, I think, to try it in a military court.
Quick reply. I can because I am not a lawyer, so do not have the luxury of several days reflection (and billing accordingly).
I think the above section was introduced to deal with people ‘disappearing’ outside territorial waters and attempting to claim immunity.
The Armed Forces Act 2006 makes very clear distinctions between ‘Persons Subject to Service Law’ and ‘Civilians Subject to Service Discipline’.
The very important point of this is to decide where the prosecution must lay their case, and is quite straightforward.
As mentioned above, the Attorney General has to be involved in contentious cases. The decision lies with them, ultimately. As I said upthread, I don’t know why they would naysay any request from the DSP.
 
Top