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

Well, yes, obviously. But surely the military justice system is intelligent enough to not even start a CM when there is anything less than a near-certainty of a guilty verdict? It's not as if there aren't investigations, preliminary hearings and so on...or is it? I honestly don't know, I just find it a bit strange.
If only someone would tell the civvie courts the same, it would save so much time and money just charging guilty people.
 

Truxx

LE
A colleague of mine is suffering the current turgid police approach to historic sexual assault/rape accusations, this time from his now ex partner (they were together 22 years before he walked away a couple of years ago) making allegations relating back to 2005.

After two years of her trying to extort money from him, she finally, just after Christmas, lodged a complaint and, now hidebound by a combination of process and public opinion climate are now hell bent on turning the normal assumption of innocent till proven guilty around the other way.

He is currently on police bail, and will be for at least the next 4 months, even though the Police and Crime Act was introduced to stop accused suffering lengthy bail whilst the police got on with important facebook crime and nailing speeding offences. Except that the moment it was introduced specifically to avoid situations of long police bail especially related to historic allegations the Police issued guidance that the act did not apply to historic allegations of this kind (as Terry Wogan would say, Is it me?)

It is a very sad story indeed. The Law may not be an ass, but some of the process most definitely is.
 
Another one in the spotlight

A British Army officer faces an accusation of sexual assault over a claim he touched a woman's bum with his foot.
Colonel Martin Toney, who has a 36-year career in the Army, admitted contact but says it was an accident, not sexual.

The alleged assault was reported by the woman on January 29 last year,

Report

1614507054286.png
 

37ucv67i

War Hero
Most cases that go to CM are investigated by RMP. They apply the same tests as civpol, ie is there sufficient evidence to proceed. If so, the service person is charged (via the CO).
There are some minor offences that do not need RMP or SPA involvement, and may be dealt with at unit level.
A Court Martial or Summary Hearing is not really convened to be tribunal, but to hear evidence and work out what to believe. And make a finding on what they hear, see, and believe. Just like any other court.
Thank you, very informative. I was probably thinking too much along the lines of the continental system where the prosecuting authority won't proceed to trial unless they are quite sure they can prove the charges, and where the conviction rate thus is very high.
 
Don't be stupid, you know perfectly well what I mean.
If anyone is being stupid its you, what a great day for justice when only people who must be guilty go to court.
 
Because I assume that, unlike cases involving things like fraud ("I claimed the expenses in good faith!") and battery ("I was only defending myself!"), these cases would be comparatively straightforward and not leave much room for interpretation: A raped/sexually assaulted B - B makes the corresponding statement - possibly a medical examination is carried out, witnesses are questioned - if there is a reasonable indication that A is guilty, CM commences - A is found guilty. Obviously, I am mistaken somewhere.
AIUI civvy courts ( and presumably CMs) have a low rate of conviction for rape because many cases are based on issues of consent rather than physical evidence of what happened. Since there tends to be a lack of eye witnesses to rape it becomes a he said/she said case and thus tricky to prove beyond reasonable doubt
 

37ucv67i

War Hero
If anyone is being stupid its you, what a great day for justice when only people who must be guilty go to court.
It's funny, sometimes you post reasonable, interesting and even intelligent stuff, and sometimes you are being a very childish troll. I'm aware you love shit-stirring and winding people up, but even then...Anyway, I'm not going to react to your bickering any further. Bye for now.
 

37ucv67i

War Hero
AIUI civvy courts ( and presumably CMs) have a low rate of conviction for rape because many cases are based on issues of consent rather than physical evidence of what happened. Since there tends to be a lack of eye witnesses to rape it becomes a he said/she said case and thus tricky to prove beyond reasonable doubt
Sure, but, and I'm genuinely sorry if I'm being obtuse here, why does the prosecuting authority even decide to prosecute when the evidence is insufficient for proving the case beyond reasonable doubt? Someone said above the question for them is "can we win this case?" I would have assumed the question is "Do we have enough evidence so that there is a very high probability of us winning this case?" Probably this is just my lack of familiarity with the judicial system showing. Still, it seems a waste of resources to charge people when there is insufficient evidence.
 
It's funny, sometimes you post reasonable, interesting and even intelligent stuff, and sometimes you are being a very childish troll. I'm aware you love shit-stirring and winding people up, but even then...Anyway, I'm not going to react to your bickering any further. Bye for now.
Its ok mate, no one else saw you making a tit of yourself, honest.
 
Sure, but, and I'm genuinely sorry if I'm being obtuse here, why does the prosecuting authority even decide to prosecute when the evidence is insufficient for proving the case beyond reasonable doubt? Someone said above the question for them is "can we win this case?" I would have assumed the question is "Do we have enough evidence so that there is a very high probability of us winning this case?" Probably this is just my lack of familiarity with the judicial system showing. Still, it seems a waste of resources to charge people when there is insufficient evidence.
Because the evidence has to be tested in court. Witnesses have to give evidence on oath and be cross-examined by the defence. It is the job of the defence to convince the judge/jury/CM panel that the prosecution has not been able to prover certain facets of evidence to the standard required.

E2A: In England and Wales, the origin of Right To Fair Trial & Right To Be Heard can be traced back in the Magna Carta Act, 1215 (from Wikipedia).
 
Last edited:
Because the evidence has to be tested in court. Witnesses have to give evidence on oath and be cross-examined by the defence. It is the job of the defence to convince the judge/jury/CM panel that the prosecution has not been able to prover certain facets of evidence to the standard required.

E2A: In England and Wales, the origin of Right To Fair Trial & Right To Be Heard can be traced back in the Magna Carta Act, 1215 (from Wikipedia).
It's amazing that you have to explain to people who have lived under British law.
 
Let’s not forget that a huge amount of pressure is put on police and prosecutors to try to increase the conviction rate for sexual offences, because of the very low rate of successful prosecutions. This pressure often comes from politicians, the media and pressure groups, invariably for honourable reasons.

However, as has already been mentioned, consent is invariably the main area of contention. Especially between parties who are already known to each other and who might have previously had a sexual relationship.
 
There's probably a greater connection between the longer-term success of young, non-graduates, rather than just RoWCo types - coincidently many of the younger OCdts passaged to the CC via RowCo due to "immaturity" or other such spurious assessments by RCB.

The couple of guys from my cohort who are racing ahead of the pack are both non-grads. My assessment, is that the extra 3/4 years in the Army as a junior officer is of greater benefit to the individual by virtue of absorbing the culture of the organisation, expectations etc in time for various early career promotion / appointment boards etc. Eg, in the run into a Adjt board, a grad officer will have probably only have done a Tp/Pl Comd tour and one junior capt role...a non-grad is most likely to have done x2 Tp Comd tours, an instr job and a junior capt job... as such will be much more rounded (and younger) come Adjt appt, BeL & SUC selection. Despite being a "progressive" organisation the army still has "younger the better" as its career management philosophy - although now disguised as EED - it is still an age-based career system.

Of course, as the army has transitioned to an almost graduate only intake and parity of terms of service, this will be much less relevant. Current RMAS comdt is both non-grad and RowCo.

This.
 
Reporting sick.

Report to Coy Office - Company Orderly Sgt logged and checked you had the correct kit - Fancy Dress and carrying bedding down in MRS kit

Report straight back to Company Orderly Sgt / Coy Office - Med Cen would inform Coy Office / COS if patient transferred to MRS

Lights out - No

Reveille - Yes

Block Jobs - Yes

Association Hour - No



Nice to see that the grey matter is kicking in with some of the older members and memories are being reawakened :) :)
It used to be said that it took a fit man to go sick in the Army!
 
A colleague of mine is suffering the current turgid police approach to historic sexual assault/rape accusations, this time from his now ex partner (they were together 22 years before he walked away a couple of years ago) making allegations relating back to 2005.
Its not the current turgid police approach to sexual assault/rape accusations, its the fact an ex partner has made allegations of a serious criminal nature and police are duty bound to investigate them. Neither the victim or suspect will have come to the attention of police before. One of the big problems when they made maritial rape a criminal offence is how do you prove it in cases of historical allegations. Its almost impossible. It was always an offence when both parties were seperated, but when both parties are sharing the same bed? I have known of convictions before but they are few and far between.

In this case the fact that she was trying to exort money from him before making the allegations will have a significant bearing on the case. Still, police will have to take a long detailed statement from her with details of each incident. He would then be interviewed under caution about the allegations contained in the statement. The case is then sent off to the CPS reviewing lawyer who looks at it and concludes that in the absence of any other factors there is not a reasonable prospect of a conviction (51%) in a criminal court.

Both Police and Prosecutors have done their job and more importantly have 'covered themselves.' However this little comfort to the bloke who has gone through all the stress and worry. The women will probably be content as well as she didn't really want to put him inside, but just wanted revenge and to make him suffer. Why would she do such a thing? Because she can. Such allegations are easy to make, need no supporting evidence and its virtually impossible to prove that she is lieing..

As for the police bail thing - that was another one of Theresa May's stupid ideas. One of many, the useless women.
 
Top