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

It used to be said that it took a fit man to go sick in the Army!
It seemed to be a left over approach from National Service days to discourage malingers from going sick. I very much doubt that it achieved this but what it probably did was to discourage good soldiers who really were sick from reporting sick as they didn't want to be thought of as malingers and also didn't want the hassle. It could have potentially caused them to incur life changing illness.

Hopefully in this day and age you would hope that the chain-of-command would be hammered by the courts and press if such things happened.
 

Truxx

LE
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.
I get a very strong sense of going through the motions. But there is plenty to support my sense of him being guilty until proven innocent. Arrested late one evening while sitting watching telly, taken via one police authority to a second, detained in a cell for22 hours before any form of interview took place, even then not conducted by the investigating PC (PC? For an allegation such as this), discovering that the allegation was made a month or so previously. 5 minute video phone call with the duty brief just before the interview, no Covid arrangements, no offer of a drink, etc etc etc....

For all I know he could be as guilty as hell. But any QC worth his salt would be able to drive a coach and horses through the so called due process. So rather a waste of time and money.
 
I get a very strong sense of going through the motions. But there is plenty to support my sense of him being guilty until proven innocent. Arrested late one evening while sitting watching telly, taken via one police authority to a second, detained in a cell for22 hours before any form of interview took place, even then not conducted by the investigating PC (PC? For an allegation such as this), discovering that the allegation was made a month or so previously. 5 minute video phone call with the duty brief just before the interview, no Covid arrangements, no offer of a drink, etc etc etc....

For all I know he could be as guilty as hell. But any QC worth his salt would be able to drive a coach and horses through the so called due process. So rather a waste of time and money.

Have you seen his custody record to confirm all that you state happened to him in potential breach of PACE 84?
 
I get a very strong sense of going through the motions. But there is plenty to support my sense of him being guilty until proven innocent. Arrested late one evening while sitting watching telly, taken via one police authority to a second, detained in a cell for22 hours before any form of interview took place, even then not conducted by the investigating PC (PC? For an allegation such as this), discovering that the allegation was made a month or so previously. 5 minute video phone call with the duty brief just before the interview, no Covid arrangements, no offer of a drink, etc etc etc....

For all I know he could be as guilty as hell. But any QC worth his salt would be able to drive a coach and horses through the so called due process. So rather a waste of time and money.
That is just very poor. The investigating officer should have arranged a caution plus three interview if there was no likelyhood of him flieing abroad or anywhere, and he should NEVER have been interviewed without his solictor present if he wanted one. At the start of a police interview you are asked if you want a solictor present and if you don't asked to explain why and told that if at any time you decide you might want one, the interview will be stopped and delayed until one is present.

However if this was in Scotland - they do things different there.
 
That is just very poor. The investigating officer should have arranged a caution plus three interview if there was no likelyhood of him flieing abroad or anywhere, and he should NEVER have been interviewed without his solictor present if he wanted one. At the start of a police interview you are asked if you want a solictor present and if you don't asked to explain why and told that if at any time you decide you might want one, the interview will be stopped and delayed until one is present.

However if this was in Scotland - they do things different there.

Covid has definitely changed things, with many solicitors, refusing to come to stations and conducting consultations over the phone prior to interview after receiving phone or email disclosure from officers.
 

Truxx

LE
That is just very poor. The investigating officer should have arranged a caution plus three interview if there was no likelyhood of him flieing abroad or anywhere, and he should NEVER have been interviewed without his solictor present if he wanted one. At the start of a police interview you are asked if you want a solictor present and if you don't asked to explain why and told that if at any time you decide you might want one, the interview will be stopped and delayed until one is present.

However if this was in Scotland - they do things different there.
At one point the thought occurred to me that the particular force concerned were deliberately making a pigs ear of it to ensure that it all fell on its arse.

Quite harsh on the individual in the spotlight though. He is not doing too well I must say.
 
. . . . . . . and concludes that in the absence of any other factors there is not a reasonable prospect of a conviction (51%) in a criminal court.
The "balance of probability" test i.e. 51% chance that something happened is the civil law threshold. The criminal threshold for conviction is far far higher, at "beyond reasonable doubt". The defence's job, like it or not, is to introduce that doubt to the jury or CM panel so the evidence presented is not beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore not guilty is the only verdict that can be reached.

I haven't spoken to any CPS lawyers for many years but certainly when I first started my legal career I was told by some that they, the CPS, were looking at at least a 70% probability that the evidence was sufficient for a conviction to continue a case in most cases (there were exceptions such as in the public interest to bring the case though that level of probability hadn't been reached). Times may have changed I don't know but a 70% + test seems sensible to me.
 
The "balance of probability" test i.e. 51% chance that something happened is the civil law threshold. The criminal threshold for conviction is far far higher, at "beyond reasonable doubt". The defence's job, like it or not, is to introduce that doubt to the jury or CM panel so the evidence presented is not beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore not guilty is the only verdict that can be reached.

I haven't spoken to any CPS lawyers for many years but certainly when I first started my legal career I was told by some that they, the CPS, were looking at at least a 70% probability that the evidence was sufficient for a conviction to continue a case in most cases (there were exceptions such as in the public interest to bring the case though that level of probability hadn't been reached). Times may have changed I don't know but a 70% + test seems sensible to me.
51% was the test the CPS used of the realistic chance of a conviction in a crown court before they would authorise a charge and put the case before a court. Thats going back to 2003 to 2005 time. It may have changed since then. This was when the CPS took over the authority to charge for all but a small number of offences from police. Before that the police would put all sorts of crap in front of the court which didn't stand a realistic chance of conviction (because of weak evidence) on the Inspector's view that "we should give it a run."
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
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

View attachment 553186
Blimey - served with Martin a couple of times.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Am I the only one struggling to work out how touching someone on the arse with your foot can be sexual, or is my sex life just really vanilla?
 
Am I the only one struggling to work out how touching someone on the arse with your foot can be sexual, or is my sex life just really vanilla?

I suppose it depends on how far in you manage to get your toes.
 
Come to sea with me, and I’ll show you how...

(serious head, is it not about impact on victim - feel stroke on arse, it doesn’t really matter which limb/appendage did it?)
 
The evidential sufficiency test:

“The finding that there is a realistic prospect of conviction is based on the prosecutor’s objective assessment of the evidence, including the impact of any defence and any other information that the suspect has put forward or on which they might rely. It means that an objective, impartial and reasonable jury or bench of magistrates or judge hearing a case alone, properly directed and acting in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged. This is a different test from the one that the criminal courts themselves must apply. A court may only convict if it is sure that the defendant is guilty.”

 
It seemed to be a left over approach from National Service days to discourage malingers from going sick. I very much doubt that it achieved this but what it probably did was to discourage good soldiers who really were sick from reporting sick as they didn't want to be thought of as malingers and also didn't want the hassle. It could have potentially caused them to incur life changing illness.

Hopefully in this day and age you would hope that the chain-of-command would be hammered by the courts and press if such things happened.

National service ended 1960-1963, 2LSR were still doing it in the 2000s, 4 LSR introduce a policy of having to see a senior rank/officer in your Troop before going sick in the morning, which was great when they had fucked off to PT and you had to wait around for them to finish, shower and come back into work, also in the 2000s.

Yet another example of shit leadership based on something that happened decades ago.
 
Blimey - served with Martin a couple of times.
With some blokes you'd say 'it was only a matter of time' and others 'no effing way'. I assume by 'blimey' your initial response is the latter?
 
Last edited:
National service ended 1960-1963, 2LSR were still doing it in the 2000s, 4 LSR introduce a policy of having to see a senior rank/officer in your Troop before going sick in the morning, which was great when they had fucked off to PT and you had to wait around for them to finish, shower and come back into work, also in the 2000s.

Yet another example of shit leadership based on something that happened decades ago.
Ahh good old Theory X management. All employees are idle, thieving scoundrels and should be treated accordingly.

 
Ahh good old Theory X management. All employees are idle, thieving scoundrels and should be treated accordingly.


They are probably right in a lot of cases, however you would have thought that at least one of the highly educated chaps would have known that a professional biff doesn't mind getting into his No2s for a biff chit, whereas a genuinely sick person would put it off and become worse.

There must be some right thick cnuts coming up with these rules.
 
Am I the only one struggling to work out how touching someone on the arse with your foot can be sexual, or is my sex life just really vanilla?

Your Post provoked another thought.

When your Platoon / Troop is zooming round the Assault Course trying for best possible time - is it permissable to give a female colleague a shove *********** to help her over the 10' wall ? Or are you leaving yourself open for all sorts of disciplinary issues ?

Come to think of it, the same goes for some blokes.
Now it is legal for homosexuals to serve , could the same scenario with an openly gay colleague be misconstrued as groping ?

I really hope wokeness has not affected what was quite an enjoyable way to spend a morning.

Edit - asterisks above did not like 'up the ar*e ' for some reason
 

Latest Threads

Top