Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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

The boot is being well and truly stuck in. Seems our Rupert is not a popular chap.
I miss all the fun. luckily FYB has a thread slagging him off as well.
 
much tamer than I thought

They are busy with the post about the text telling the lads that they need masks but they have to buy them.

And this gem

1594979533993.png


Much more interesting than the same old boring story of a senior officer who thinks V&S are the producers of Absolut vodka.
 
They are busy with the post about the text telling the lads that they need masks but they have to buy them.

And this gem

View attachment 490354

Much more interesting than the same old boring story of a senior officer who thinks V&S are the producers of Absolut vodka.

Can't the RN lay their hands on a hacksaw?
 

9.414

Old-Salt
No! As an ex-soldier you are still subject to military law up to the age of 55 and as an officer up to the age of 60, if you still have a reserve liability, which is practically everyone except med discharges.

This:

Armed Forces ACT 2006, Section 57.

Time limit for charging person formerly subject to service law

(1)This section applies where a person ceases to be subject to service law.

(2)The person may not, after the end of six months beginning with the date he ceased to be subject to service law, be charged with a service offence committed while he was so subject.

(3)Subsection (2) applies even if the person (again) becomes subject to service law within those six months.

(4)Subsection (2) does not apply in relation to an offence committed by a person when he was—
(a)a member of a volunteer reserve force; or
(b)a member of an ex-regular reserve force who was subject to an additional duties commitment.


Could be an interesting argument.
The bit I have bolded is not correct. I think you are confusing Reserve Liability to an upper age limit with being subject to service law. Your age has nothing to do with liability for prosecution under AFA06.

You are not subject to service law at all from the date you leave service - otherwise many on this site would run scared of a "Misconduct through Alcohol" charge most days of the week ;)

If the SPA wish to charge you over six months after you have left service, or left being subject to service law, they have to apply to the AG for consent. If the investigation/prosecution commenced before you left that may not apply (subject to certain conditions - you can read the Act if you want full chapter and verse). The individual this thread is about was under investigation before he resigned as far as I can tell from what is reported and getting the AG consent is routine for serious offences.

There have been some elderly civs prosecuted in recent years for offences like child abuse in Germany in 1970's - 80's. Certain civilians then and now were subject to service law when overseas.

Last year the RMP arrested a man in Swindon in a very old cold case child abduction from 1981 and it was in the news, and the oniy court that would have jurisdiction to hear it would be a CM under the Army Act 1955 with AG consent.

If next week some 80-odd year old chap confessed to war crimes against the Mau-Mau he would be CM with the AG consent.
 
The bit I have bolded is not correct. I think you are confusing Reserve Liability to an upper age limit with being subject to service law. Your age has nothing to do with liability for prosecution under AFA06.

You are not subject to service law at all from the date you leave service - otherwise many on this site would run scared of a "Misconduct through Alcohol" charge most days of the week ;)

If the SPA wish to charge you over six months after you have left service, or left being subject to service law, they have to apply to the AG for consent. If the investigation/prosecution commenced before you left that may not apply (subject to certain conditions - you can read the Act if you want full chapter and verse). The individual this thread is about was under investigation before he resigned as far as I can tell from what is reported and getting the AG consent is routine for serious offences.

There have been some elderly civs prosecuted in recent years for offences like child abuse in Germany in 1970's - 80's. Certain civilians then and now were subject to service law when overseas.

Last year the RMP arrested a man in Swindon in a very old cold case child abduction from 1981 and it was in the news, and the oniy court that would have jurisdiction to hear it would be a CM under the Army Act 1955 with AG consent.

If next week some 80-odd year old chap confessed to war crimes against the Mau-Mau he would be CM with the AG consent.
I'm not a lawyer, but received a briefing on this from a senior NATO legal advisor in Feb/Mar this year. In one of the paragraphs of the AFA 2006, it specifically states 55 yo for ex soldiers and 60 yo for ex officers. I'll have a look this evening when I have more time.

My flabber was also ghasted, but it am true.
 

9.414

Old-Salt
I'm not a lawyer, but received a briefing on this from a senior NATO legal advisor in Feb/Mar this year. In one of the paragraphs of the AFA 2006, it specifically states 55 yo for ex soldiers and 60 yo for ex officers. I'll have a look this evening when I have more time.

My flabber was also ghasted, but it am true.
I don't doubt that a service lawyer may have told you something that might not have been accurate. That is what keeps civilian lawyers in work ;)

AFA06 sections 55-61 are the relevant bits for our discussion and they are not age limits and have no age limit mentioned in them at all. When you think about it, how would they try deserters who had been hiding for a few years? It am not true!
 
I'm not a lawyer, but received a briefing on this from a senior NATO legal advisor in Feb/Mar this year. In one of the paragraphs of the AFA 2006, it specifically states 55 yo for ex soldiers and 60 yo for ex officers. I'll have a look this evening when I have more time.

My flabber was also ghasted, but it am true.
I received my annual Reporting Letter, reminding me that I had a reserve liability today - it mentioned that the reserve liability for officers who commissioned (or changed their commission type) after 31 Jan 2015 will now have a reserve liability to 60.

It may be this the lawyer was trying to explain.
 
I don't doubt that a service lawyer may have told you something that might not have been accurate. That is what keeps civilian lawyers in work ;)

AFA06 sections 55-61 are the relevant bits for our discussion and they are not age limits and have no age limit mentioned in them at all. When you think about it, how would they try deserters who had been hiding for a few years? It am not true!
I did have a trawl through the AFA on Thursday but it wasn't very helpful, so I called him yesterday for clarification. He got back to me today and said this (My words his message):

It comes from two different pieces of UK legislation, the Reserve Forces Act 1996 and the Armed Forces Act 2006.

The former defines reserve liability. For regular soldiers the reserve liability upon discharge from the colours is for 18 years or to the age of 55 whichever is shorter. For officers holding a Reg C it is to the age of 55, but SSCs are only 6 years. However, if you are in receipt a military pension you are liable for recall until age 60.

AFA06 then makes it clear that if you have any reserve liability you are subject to military law.

So I basically understood what he had said, but blurred the details in my non-lawyers brain.

BTW, not only is this guy not a service lawyer, he's not even British, but he still has a good grasp of it all.
 

9.414

Old-Salt
If that is his understanding of it I would not let it bother you. I don't think he has a good grasp of it at all!
"... AFA06 then makes it clear that if you have any reserve liability you are subject to military law..." is missing the vitally important ingredient.

If as a reservist you were recalled to the colours you would then be subject to service law. Equally an ordinary reservist when on duty is subject to service law. But merely having long term reserve liability does not make you subject to service law at all times or at all - it applies only when recalled to service.

As I joked above, you don't seriously think that a long retired 59 year old is subject to service law for misconduct through alcohol every night in the pub do you?

You need not worry as a prosecution would only happen if the SPA lawyers thought there was a case, and if it was over six months after your discharge it requires the AG's consent - and that will normally only be for serious cases.

Although we were discussion regular service, as you now have raised reserve service there is no age limit mentioned , just a post-service limit. AFA06 s62 says:
62Time limit for charging Reserve Forces Act offences
(1)A person may not be charged with a Reserve Forces Act offence after the end of whichever of the following periods ends last—

(a)six months beginning with the date of commission of the offence;

(b)two months beginning with the date the offence becomes known to the person's commanding officer;

(c)two months beginning with the date the person is apprehended;

(d)if the offence was committed when the person was a relevant reservist, six months beginning with the date he ceases to be a relevant reservist.

(2)If—

(a)the offence was committed when the person was a relevant reservist, and

(b)he ceases to be a relevant reservist after committing it,

the period in subsection (1)(d) is not extended by his (again) becoming a relevant reservist within the six months beginning with the date he so ceased.

(3)In this section—

(a)the reference in subsection (1) to charging is to charging under section 120 or 122;

(b)“Reserve Forces Act offence” means an offence within section 50(2)(h) or (i);

(c)“relevant reservist” means—

(i)a member of a volunteer reserve force; or

(ii)a member of an ex-regular reserve force who is in full-time service or subject to an additional duties commitment;

(d)“in full-time service” means in such service under a commitment entered into under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 (c. 14).

(4)Where subsection (1) prohibits the charging (as defined by subsection (3)(a)) of a person with an offence, the power under section 123(2)(c) or 125(2)(c) may not be exercised so as to charge that person with that offence.
 
Last edited:
If that is his understanding of it I would not let it bother you. I don't think he has a good grasp of it at all!
"... AFA06 then makes it clear that if you have any reserve liability you are subject to military law..." is missing the vitally important ingredient.

If as a reservist you were recalled to the colours you would then be subject to service law. Equally an ordinary reservist when on duty is subject to service law. But merely having long term reserve liability does not make you subject to service law at all times or at all - it applies only when recalled to service.

As I joked above, you don't seriously think that a long retired 59 year old is subject to service law for misconduct through alcohol every night in the pub do you?

You need not worry as a prosecution would only happen if the SPA lawyers thought there was a case, and if it was over six months after your discharge it requires the AG's consent - and that will normally only be for serious cases.

Although we were discussion regular service, as you now have raised reserve service there is no age limit mentioned , just a post-service limit. AFA06 s62 says:
62Time limit for charging Reserve Forces Act offences
(1)A person may not be charged with a Reserve Forces Act offence after the end of whichever of the following periods ends last—

(a)six months beginning with the date of commission of the offence;

(b)two months beginning with the date the offence becomes known to the person's commanding officer;

(c)two months beginning with the date the person is apprehended;

(d)if the offence was committed when the person was a relevant reservist, six months beginning with the date he ceases to be a relevant reservist.

(2)If—

(a)the offence was committed when the person was a relevant reservist, and

(b)he ceases to be a relevant reservist after committing it,

the period in subsection (1)(d) is not extended by his (again) becoming a relevant reservist within the six months beginning with the date he so ceased.

(3)In this section—

(a)the reference in subsection (1) to charging is to charging under section 120 or 122;

(b)“Reserve Forces Act offence” means an offence within section 50(2)(h) or (i);

(c)“relevant reservist” means—

(i)a member of a volunteer reserve force; or

(ii)a member of an ex-regular reserve force who is in full-time service or subject to an additional duties commitment;

(d)“in full-time service” means in such service under a commitment entered into under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 (c. 14).

(4)Where subsection (1) prohibits the charging (as defined by subsection (3)(a)) of a person with an offence, the power under section 123(2)(c) or 125(2)(c) may not be exercised so as to charge that person with that offence.
I fully got the point about reservists (Soldiers anyway) only being subject to military law when 'on-duty', which is what I had understood from my time as a regular with a TA unit, but there is a little story behind this.

I'm sure you'll excuse the lack of detail given the nature of it. An ex-soldier working for NATO as a civilian, had a complaint made against him and a board was convened of which I was a member. As a current British soldier was also involved this came to the attention of the UK SNR. In his turn he made enquiries with the Army Legal Service who were of the opinion that the respondent could be prosecuted under UK mil law if it was believed an offence may have been committed, this based on what I wrote earlier. This is where the legal advisor briefed us. As it happened the mil police showed no interest, the ALS and SNR lost interest and the board wasn't taken very far as the complaint fell apart on examination.

This may have been mentioned before, but I am not a lawyer. I still appreciate your responses and the time you took to put them together.
 
I fully got the point about reservists (Soldiers anyway) only being subject to military law when 'on-duty', which is what I had understood from my time as a regular with a TA unit, but there is a little story behind this.

I'm sure you'll excuse the lack of detail given the nature of it. An ex-soldier working for NATO as a civilian, had a complaint made against him and a board was convened of which I was a member. As a current British soldier was also involved this came to the attention of the UK SNR. In his turn he made enquiries with the Army Legal Service who were of the opinion that the respondent could be prosecuted under UK mil law if it was believed an offence may have been committed, this based on what I wrote earlier. This is where the legal advisor briefed us. As it happened the mil police showed no interest, the ALS and SNR lost interest and the board wasn't taken very far as the complaint fell apart on examination.

This may have been mentioned before, but I am not a lawyer. I still appreciate your responses and the time you took to put them together.
I think the SNR was talking out of his hoop, i work for NATO, the British military have no legal authority over ex squaddies commiting crimes after they left. Outside of Northwood, the British military arresting civvies (excluding those that are already covered by agreements) in the rest of the NATO countries would lead to some interesting chats with the host nation and the embassy.
 
I think the SNR was talking out of his hoop, i work for NATO, the British military have no legal authority over ex squaddies commiting crimes after they left. Outside of Northwood, the British military arresting civvies (excluding those that are already covered by agreements) in the rest of the NATO countries would lead to some interesting chats with the host nation and the embassy.
'Fraid not old chum. Have a look at AFA 06 Schedule 15, section (5).


Persons working for specified military organisations

5(1)A person is within this paragraph (subject to paragraph 11) if—

(a)he is employed by or in the service of a specified naval, military or air-force organisation of which the United Kingdom is a member;

(b)he is so employed by reason of the United Kingdom's membership of that organisation; and

[F1(c)either—

(i)he is in a country outside the British Islands, and his normal place of work under that employment is in that country; or

(ii)sub-paragraph (i) does not apply, but he is in a country outside the British Islands and he came there wholly or partly for the purposes of his work under that employment.]

(2)In this paragraph “specified” means specified by order of the Secretary of State under this paragraph.
 
'Fraid not old chum. Have a look at AFA 06 Schedule 15, section (5).


Persons working for specified military organisations

5(1)A person is within this paragraph (subject to paragraph 11) if—

(a)he is employed by or in the service of a specified naval, military or air-force organisation of which the United Kingdom is a member;

(b)he is so employed by reason of the United Kingdom's membership of that organisation; and

[F1(c)either—

(i)he is in a country outside the British Islands, and his normal place of work under that employment is in that country; or

(ii)sub-paragraph (i) does not apply, but he is in a country outside the British Islands and he came there wholly or partly for the purposes of his work under that employment.]

(2)In this paragraph “specified” means specified by order of the Secretary of State under this paragraph.

Doesnt apply to NATO apparently, I asked, (I originally asked who I would legally be under if I did tour as NATO civvie)
 
Doesnt apply to NATO apparently, I asked, (I originally asked who I would legally be under if I did tour as NATO civvie)
Interesting! I guess that's why they didn't try to invoke that schedule in the matter I mentioned.

What was the answer to your question? That is an eternal debate for us. I am a NATO civvy, working in Germany, under C2 (Head of NATO Body) of an organisation in Mons (Belgium), with a contract signed by JFC Brunssum (Netherlands).
 
Top