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.

You’re missing the point. This is Stacker you’re debating with. Orderly Rooms are conducted by officers, ergo they are crap and a stitch-up.
Did anyone say they were all a stitch up.

Its not surprising that officers are defending a flawed system, I bet you would bleat like **** if you were in front of a magistrate when one of his mates has made a allegation against you.
You have had several people on here state its only guilty people that the CO would see.
 
You’re missing the point. This is Stacker you’re debating with. Orderly Rooms are conducted by officers, ergo they are crap and a stitch-up.
He does have a point. The CO isn’t there to make a decision on guilt or innocence. That should have been concluded before the meeting. So if you are innocent the system isn’t geared up to process it. Odds of that happening are low but I have seen it and a very nasty SC was avoided at the last minute.
 

Alamo

LE
Stacks I’m not defending anyone’s position. You have some great points to make normally, but as you reduce every thread to an anti-officer argument they get lost in the noise. If you didn’t present everything through a lens of Officer=Bad you would gain more traction.
 
Stacks I’m not defending anyone’s position. You have some great points to make normally, but as you reduce every thread to an anti-officer argument they get lost in the noise. If you didn’t present everything through a lens of Officer=Bad you would gain more traction.
He hasn’t got there yet, hit point is valid, CO is there to decide punishment not guilt, and they’ll have worked that out before hand in his opinion, mine too.
 
He hasn’t got there yet, hit point is valid, CO is there to decide punishment not guilt, and they’ll have worked that out before hand in his opinion, mine too.

When does the soldier get to put their side of the incident forward? Normally in a PACE 84 compliant interview after caution.

If that hasn’t happened, then the first time a soldier can have their say, might be on CO’s Orders, in which case, The CO can’t possibly have made up their mind about guilt.
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
What was the charge in 1991? I got bounced for a trailer reversing accident that was down to no-one else (wet boot slipped off clutch pedal in a Rover), and I think I was charged with negligently performing a duty. It was 30-odd years ago, so might not have the charge right, but definitely "negligence" was alleged.

As an aside, if it was today, I would have them Court Martial me for it, then I could explain the lethal polished bare metal pedals and ridiculously shit boots we had at the time were as much to blame as my haste to back up the Rover. But I was a mere NIG and just copped a small fine.

But what would the charge be where the driver's done nothing wrong? "Cpl CAARPS, you are charged that you did, on or about sometime in 1991 at RIPON, did, erm, do fvck all, and got rear ended, occasioning damage to the tune of £12.83 to a military vehicle". Doesn't seem like it'd pass muster to me.
In CAARPS case, being rear-ended would generally exonerate him and result in not guilty. In your case however as you knew it was wet, knew you had shit boots and knew the pedals were bare metal you’re bang to rights for negligence so - guilty, a fine to sharpen you up plus a stoppage of pay to help pay a proportion of the damage.

March out please Sarn’t Major!

ETA: Fined two Green eggs and placed under stoppages of a small Weber....
 
Last edited:
When does the soldier get to put their side of the incident forward? Normally in a PACE 84 compliant interview after caution.

If that hasn’t happened, then the first time a soldier can have their say, might be on CO’s Orders, in which case, The CO can’t possibly have made up their mind about guilt.
I don't think that's correct, but I've not processed a major sanction myself. What I see regularly is statements taken and pushed to Army legal for direction. The relevant commander processes the result.
 
Last edited:
I don't think that's correct, but I've not processed a major sanction myself. What I see regularly is statements taken and pushed to Army legal for direction. The relevant commander processes the result.

So when does the “suspect” have their say if they haven’t been IAC, IAW PACE 84? Surely Orders, would be the place, and the CO can’t possibly decide until they have heard that.
 
So when does the “suspect” have their say if they haven’t been IAC, IAW PACE 84? Surely Orders, would be the place, and the CO can’t possibly decide until they have heard that.
An evidence pack is built and sent to the respective 2* formation legal branch to decide on the weight of evidence and the appropriate charge**. You could argue that witness statements aren't PACE compliant. I maintain that the majority of mil discipline SH cases are reasonably clear-cut (eg, examples I cited, AWOL, NDs, sleeping on duty etc). More complex cases are referred to CM or civvi courts - there are of course always exceptions.

** ETA - at this point Legal Branch will dismiss charges if insufficient evidence, or procedural error.
 
Last edited:

9.414

War Hero
When does the soldier get to put their side of the incident forward? Normally in a PACE 84 compliant interview after caution.

If that hasn’t happened, then the first time a soldier can have their say, might be on CO’s Orders, in which case, The CO can’t possibly have made up their mind about guilt.
For CO's orders there is usually a unit investigation. The evidence is gathered (usually the CSM etc) and put in an evidence pack. The pack and the charge sheet is served on the accused and the CO not less than 24hrs before the summary hearing. If there has been an RMP interview, then the interview under caution of the accused would be in the charge pack and so the CO would already know what was being relied upon by the accused.

If the CO read the evidence pack and decided that he had a reasonable doubt (the evidential test) then orders would be cancelled. If not then orders go ahead. On the Record of Summary Hearing the CO goes through the questions. If the charge is admitted then no questioning required (the majority of cases), if denied then an examination of the facts and that is when the accused gets his say - invariably for unit investigations when no RMP interview has occurred eg why were you late on parade?

If the CO has read the PACE interview transcript where the accused has raised any defences (usually with legal representation and advice) before the interview and compared it to the evidence served, if he decides that there is a reasonable doubt at that point then he should cancel orders as that is the test he has to meet at the end of orders. The logic therefore is that if orders go ahead in those limited circumstances the CO has rejected the defences raised in the PACE interview and the accused will be found guilty. "March in the Guilty B**** " applies! In those circumstances if the accused considers he is innocent then he knows he is to be found guilty and should elect for court martial at the outset.

JSP 830 Chapter 9 sets it all out
 
When does the soldier get to put their side of the incident forward? Normally in a PACE 84 compliant interview after caution.

If that hasn’t happened, then the first time a soldier can have their say, might be on CO’s Orders, in which case, The CO can’t possibly have made up their mind about guilt.
Part of the evidence pack will be a statement from the charged soldier. There is also an opportunity during the SH process to make a mitigation statement, either by the soldier, or if he's not comfortable doing so, by his AO.
 
An evidence pack is built and sent to the respective 2* formation legal branch to decide on the weight of evidence and the appropriate charge**. You could argue that witness statements aren't PACE compliant. I maintain that the majority of mil discipline SH cases are reasonably clear-cut (eg, examples I cited, AWOL, NDs, sleeping on duty etc). More complex cases are referred to CM or civvi courts - there are of course always exceptions.

** ETA - at this point Legal Branch will dismiss charges if insufficient evidence, or procedural error.

Why would a witness statement be PACE 84 compliant. It’s covered by a signed declaration under S9 CJA 1967, that allows it to be admissible in a court without the person necessarily being present.

Is AWOL/ND or sleeping on duty an absolute offence? If not the suspect might have a defence, which they are entitled to put forward. Where do they get the chance to do that?
 
For CO's orders there is usually a unit investigation. The evidence is gathered (usually the CSM etc) and put in an evidence pack. The pack and the charge sheet is served on the accused and the CO not less than 24hrs before the summary hearing. If there has been an RMP interview, then the interview under caution of the accused would be in the charge pack and so the CO would already know what was being relied upon by the accused.

If the CO read the evidence pack and decided that he had a reasonable doubt (the evidential test) then orders would be cancelled. If not then orders go ahead. On the Record of Summary Hearing the CO goes through the questions. If the charge is admitted then no questioning required (the majority of cases), if denied then an examination of the facts and that is when the accused gets his say - invariably for unit investigations when no RMP interview has occurred eg why were you late on parade?

If the CO has read the PACE interview transcript where the accused has raised any defences (usually with legal representation and advice) before the interview and compared it to the evidence served, if he decides that there is a reasonable doubt at that point then he should cancel orders as that is the test he has to meet at the end of orders. The logic therefore is that if orders go ahead in those limited circumstances the CO has rejected the defences raised in the PACE interview and the accused will be found guilty. "March in the Guilty B**** " applies! In those circumstances if the accused considers he is innocent then he knows he is to be found guilty and should elect for court martial at the outset.

JSP 830 Chapter 9 sets it all out

That relies on a PACE 84 compliant IAC. If that hadn’t happened, The CO can’t possibly have made up their minds prior to hearing the accused.
 

9.414

War Hero
That relies on a PACE 84 compliant IAC. If that hadn’t happened, The CO can’t possibly have made up their minds prior to hearing the accused.
Correct - for unit investigations, and those are the vast majority. However if you read the JSP highlighted you can see that either before the hearing or early in the hearing the accused is asked if he admits the charge. If he admits then no further questioning needed.

For the majority of the charges the soldier is pleading guilty. It is probably only about 5-10% of charges where there is any room to argue. Those are probably the ones that go on election for trial or SAC against finding.
 
Why would a witness statement be PACE 84 compliant. It’s covered by a signed declaration under S9 CJA 1967, that allows it to be admissible in a court without the person necessarily being present.

Is AWOL/ND or sleeping on duty an absolute offence? If not the suspect might have a defence, which they are entitled to put forward. Where do they get the chance to do that?
I'm out of my knowledge comfort zone (and a few years out of date) others are more current. The point I was making is that a written statement made in the troop office by a layman and not by service police is unlikely to be PACE(D) or more widely legally compliant. But happy to be told I'm incorrect.
 
For the majority of the charges the soldier is pleading guilty. It is probably only about 5-10% of charges where there is any room to argue. Those are probably the ones that go on election for trial or SAC against finding.
This. I don't recall a single case from being an OC/CO. Benefit of doubt was invariably given to avoid a summary hearing. And even when absolutely necessary cases get admonished or dismissed.
 
I'm out of my knowledge comfort zone (and a few years out of date) others are more current. The point I was making is that a written statement made in the troop office by a layman and not by service police is unlikely to be PACE(D) or more widely legally compliant. But happy to be told I'm incorrect.

I agree.

Would a CO rely on that evidence? Do many Pte/JNCO ranks refuse requests from WO/SNCO for statements that can prosecute others and what training in The Rules of Evidence would these statement takers get?
 

Latest Threads

Top