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

[exbleep]

Most independent sub-units are placed under the command of a unit for administrative purposes in my experience. I can't think of many where CO's powers are more or less permanently delegated but I guess it happens.

COs powers were sometimes delegated to detachment commanders.
In one case, a unit in Belize being part of a larger unit based in UK came under the admin control of the local battalion but the detachment commander, a Captain, was granted powers of a CO.

I think there are other type units like that as well.

 

[Auld-Yin]

COs powers were sometimes delegated to detachment commanders.
In one case, a unit in Belize being part of a larger unit based in UK came under the admin control of the local battalion but the detachment commander, a Captain, was granted powers of a CO.

I think there are other type units like that as well.

But those powers were very limited and the Captain would have had to refer the most serious cases upwards.

 

[exbleep]

Never got that involved but the unit with an Int Corps det cmdr, plus another one in the Falklands where the det cmdr was shared between R Sigs and Int Corps, had delegated powers of a CO.
I do know one case where a regimental charge (over a week's pay?) was handed out by the Captain at the time and accepted. Can't for the life of me remember what the bloke got charged for, though.

I also STR a chap telling me about a unit in Benbecula having similar but that was some 40 odd years ago now.

 

[bobthebuilder]

COs powers were sometimes delegated to detachment commanders.
In one case, a unit in Belize being part of a larger unit based in UK came under the admin control of the local battalion but the detachment commander, a Captain, was granted powers of a CO.

I think there are other type units like that as well.

The Engineer Field Squadron in Belize was found from one of the UK Engineer Regiments. It was not under admin control of the roulement infantry battalion; the OC reported to CBF alongside the CO of the battalion.

The OC had powers of CO. My recollection is that this occurred automatically; it was not necessary under AA 55 for the Engineer Regiment CO to delegate those powers.

But those powers were very limited and the Captain would have had to refer the most serious cases upwards.

Not true. I assumed command of a Field Squadron in Belize when my OC had to leave for the final month of our tour. I had full powers of CO.

 

[Gravelbelly]

Could you point out where I adopted that position or even hinted at it ?

UK Law - Applicable to 100% of the UK population.

Service Law ( AFA 06 ) - Applicable to around 0.5% of the UK population.

Except Service Law applies to anyone who steps onto one of Her Majesty's Grey War Canoes floating at quayside. 100% of the population, not 0.5%. Read that second link I posted.

After all, if you can be pedantic, so can I...

 

[Stonker]

Really? I've never seen that guidance in the Army Act 1955. What section?

Look up the offence of Drunkenness, read it in full, and then study the notes. I'm afraid I don't have a copy of the book isteslf.

It was majored on by the instructor at one of my Mil Law courses (yes, I did it twice, don't ask) hence I was alert to the issues a half-decade later when my Cyprus tale occurred.

 

[Stonker]

The OC had powers of CO. My recollection is that this occurred automatically;

That rings true.

Powers of "Detachment Commander" rings a bell, but I may be mis-remembering.

 

[Tappet]

Look up the offence of Drunkenness, read it in full, and then study the notes. I'm afraid I don't have a copy of the book isteslf.

It was majored on by the instructor at one of my Mil Law courses (yes, I did it twice, don't ask) hence I was alert to the issues a half-decade later when my Cyprus tale occurred.

Drunkenness (AA55) (as at 1991 - original is similar):

43 Drunkenness.
(1) Any person subject to military law who is guilty of drunkenness, whether on duty or not, shall, on conviction by court-martial, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or any less punishment provided by this Act
(2) For the purposes of this section a person is guilty of drunkenness if owing to the influence of alcohol or any drug, whether alone or in combination with any other circumstances, he is unfit to be entrusted with his duty or with any duty which [F3he might reasonably expect to be called upon to perform], or behaves in a disorderly manner or in any manner likely to bring discredit on Her Majesty’s service.

Looking at other versions (due to the addition / repeal of wording) there's no mention at all of 'Officer's shouldn't intervene as it may make it worse' (or similar wording).

Could you be confusing it with guidance provided by AGAI / the predecessor of AGAI?

 

[FourZeroCharlie]

That rings true.

Powers of "Detachment Commander" rings a bell, but I may be mis-remembering.

A dark worm at the back of my head tells me that the delegated authority had to be promulgated?

 

[Filthy_contract]

A dark worm at the back of my head tells me that the delegated authority had to be promulgated?

It had to be promulgated in the RAF in Station Routine Orders. A copy of the relevant order would be part of the documentation for prosecution.

 

[Auld-Yin]

A dark worm at the back of my head tells me that the delegated authority had to be promulgated?

Indeed it was promulgated in Pt One Orders and was a usual occurrence as the CO went on leave or courses or other long absence plus Company Commanders similarly for their Coys, again promulgated in Pt1 Orders.

I am going back one years now but there was a 'pecking order' in the powers granted:

Lt as OC Coy, can hear case and dismiss if no evidence or obviously not guilty. Anything else went to CO's Orders

Capt as OC Coy, slightly more in that he could award up to 7 days RoPs but if a fine or detention was considered then off to CO's.

Major as BN CO, usually the 2IC, with most of the powers of a CO but, IIRC, even their powers were not as high as the actual CO and there was a limit on the size of fine and time in detention, often if the CO was due back soon referred to his assizes.

As I say, long time ago, different disciplinary codes but there was a strict definition of Powers of Delegation.

This extended to what the CO could write off as well

 

[9.414]

Could you point out where I adopted that position or even hinted at it ?

UK Law - Applicable to 100% of the UK population.

Service Law ( AFA 06 ) - Applicable to around 0.5% of the UK population.

These basics used to be covered on the duties of an NCO part of a JNCO's cadre.

Just like the Army Act 1955 covered persons subject to Military Law.

That big book was called Manual of Military Law, not Manual of UK Law.

Service Law, whether AA55 or AFA 06 actually applies to all the UK population. I agree that it seldom troubles 99.5% of them but it still applies to them. Have a look at s344 to s346 of AFA06 for examples.

If any person aids or assists an absentee or deserter, for example, they commit an offence. If you hide a "Deserter in the woodpile" (other hiding places are available) and are caught hiding the fugitive when the police come calling you could be in trouble. It would be dealt with in the civilian court system as an offence under AFA06.

If somebody tries to enlist giving false information there are regulations under AFA 06 that create an offence that can be heard in the magistrates court.

ETA: ... and the AFA06 is UK law. It is an Act of Parliament like all the others. 2006, Chapter 52 if you want to go and look it up. It is available for free online.

 

[Bodenplatte]

So if you get lifted by Dibble and found to be AWOL, your position is that they can't hold you until the RMP turn up, because not UK Law? Or perhaps this applies...

Armed Forces Act 2006

An Act to make provision with respect to the armed forces; and for connected purposes.

www.legislation.gov.uk

You also might want to ask yourself how "it's not law" applies when you read Schedule 15:

Armed Forces Act 2006

An Act to make provision with respect to the armed forces; and for connected purposes.

www.legislation.gov.uk

It is law.

Some offences only apply to serving members of the Armed Forces.

That's why the first few words on AFA252 charge sheet usually read, "Number, Rank, Name, A Member of Her Majesty's Armed Forces, is charged with . . . . ."

But, for example, under the Army Act 1955 (s.197) a civilian could be charged with wearing non-entitled medals and be brought before a Magistrates' Court because the offence was not restricted to serving personnel.

That's just one example and maybe not the best, as AA55 was repealed in full when AFA06 replaced it, and the s.197 provision was not carried over to the new Act. But I use it because I am familiar with it, and it illustrates my point,

 

[Filthy_contract]

Service Law, whether AA55 or AFA 06 actually applies to all the UK population. I agree that it seldom troubles 99.5% of them but it still applies to them. Have a look at s344 to s346 of AFA06 for examples.

If any person aids or assists an absentee or deserter, for example, they commit an offence. If you hide a "Deserter in the woodpile" (other hiding places are available) and are caught hiding the fugitive when the police come calling you could be in trouble. It would be dealt with in the civilian court system as an offence under AFA06.

If somebody tries to enlist giving false information there are regulations under AFA 06 that create an offence that can be heard in the magistrates court.

ETA: ... and the AFA06 is UK law. It is an Act of Parliament like all the others. 2006, Chapter 52 if you want to go and look it up. It is available for free online.

Yeah, but I DO NOT CONSENT. This is not the Magna Carta, wibble wibble....

 

[Stonker]

Could you be confusing it with guidance provided by AGAI / the predecessor of AGAI?

Gimme a break: a lot of water has passed under many bridges since my Mil Law course in1979 . . . .

 

[Roadster280]

There's all kinds of Acts that apply to only a subset of the population in the main, but actually apply to all.

Official Secrets Act - only a small number of people will have access to "Official Secrets", but the entire population is subject to it, for example where random civvy finds classified documents in random non-secure location, or solicits unauthorised disclosure.

Road Traffic Act - not everyone has, or even wants, a driving licence or a car. It covers bicycles and such things as tampering with cars though.

There are Acts which cover specific industries and departments, age Prisons, Firearms, etc. The majority of UK citizens will never have anything to do with Firearms or Prisons, but they still have obligations not to do certain things relating to Prisons or Firearms.

 

[SurviveToFight]

Women are often as attractive and as beautiful as flowers(with brains) it is normal that they want to show the best of themselves through being sexy : it is the essence of feminity and real men like that .Those who dare hitting a woman are not well in their mind.Who would hit a flower

 

[Bubbles_Barker]

The Engineer Field Squadron in Belize was found from one of the UK Engineer Regiments. It was not under admin control of the roulement infantry battalion; the OC reported to CBF alongside the CO of the battalion.

The OC had powers of CO. My recollection is that this occurred automatically; it was not necessary under AA 55 for the Engineer Regiment CO to delegate those powers.



Not true. I assumed command of a Field Squadron in Belize when my OC had to leave for the final month of our tour. I had full powers of CO.

I think the point is that it is rare for a junior officer to have full powers of CO - you had those powers for a month on the basis that it was a limited amount of time and not a permanent fix.

I think it has to be published in P1Os/P2Os - as a Regtl 2IC I had to be published as CO with CO's powers etc whenever he was away.

 

[alfred_the_great]

Are we on multi-coloured fonts and italics yet?

 

[Bubbles_Barker]

Are we on multi-coloured fonts and italics yet?

Depends if you are a flower (with a brain).