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!

Judge-led review to provide greater certainty for troops being investigated

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
I haven't had a LOAC brief for a few years but, IIRC there isn't "assumption of POW protection for combatants fighting in civvies" granted by LOAC.

There's "treat as a POW" if you aren't sure of their status but, regardless, what do you want to do to them that granting them POW status stops you doing?
The LOAC simply talks in terms of combatants.

As to your other, there is value in those who play outside the rules knowing that they cannot rely on those rules to protect themselves when their time comes.

As an aside, it's hard to see how we could have won WW2 while remaining fully compliant with the LOAC.
 
The Judge also concluded that Clegg didn't believe that the car contained terrorists. So LOAC or PW status had nothing to do with it.

Putting up a "Built by robots, driven by joyriders, stopped by A Coy 2 Para" Astra mock-up in the NAAFI didn't exactly demonstrate remorse (or good sense) on the part of the hierarchy.

You have to feel sorry for a 19-year-old, wound up and put in that position, surrounded by officers and NCOs who should have behaved more competently (and trained him better in the Rules of Engagement).
What training would you have given to him to allow him to judge that rounds 1,2 and 3 were perfectly legally and round 4 was going to land him in prison? Given that the context was there was about 0.5 seconds between rounds 3 and 4, it was dark, he was firing at a moving target and looking through a SUSAT.
 
The LOAC simply talks in terms of combatants.

As to your other, there is value in those who play outside the rules knowing that they cannot rely on those rules to protect themselves when their time comes.

As an aside, it's hard to see how we could have won WW2 while remaining fully compliant with the LOAC.
Yes, it does. It also says what you need to do to gain that combatant status which includes, among other things, complying with the laws of armed Combat.

You may be confusing UK ROE restrictions & prisoner handling policy (which are more restrictive than LOAC) with the laws of armed combat requirements
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
Yes, it does. It also says what you need to do to gain that combatant status which includes, among other things, complying with the laws of armed Combat.

You may be confusing UK ROE restrictions & prisoner handling policy (which are more restrictive than LOAC) with the laws of armed combat requirements

It's not definitive and JSP 383 raises the possibility that the ultimate determination may have to be made by a tribunal.

My wider point is that we seem to be part of a small and eccentric club which takes these things seriously and we're forever going up against those who don't. I'm not sure the Chinese or the Russians will take much notice of the principle that a battle or a war must be forfeited if victory means violating the LOAC.
 
I haven't had a LOAC brief for a few years but, IIRC there isn't "assumption of POW protection for combatants fighting in civvies" granted by LOAC.

There's "treat as a POW" if you aren't sure of their status but, regardless, what do you want to do to them that granting them POW status stops you doing?
My bold. That's it in a nutshell.
 
It's not definitive and JSP 383 raises the possibility that the ultimate determination may have to be made by a tribunal.

My wider point is that we seem to be part of a small and eccentric club which takes these things seriously and we're forever going up against those who don't. I'm not sure the Chinese or the Russians will take much notice of the principle that a battle or a war must be forfeited if victory means violating the LOAC.
To pose the @Andy71 question, what is it that the LOAC would prevent us doing in that scenario to defeat the Chinese or Russians, when ignoring the LOAC would give us victory?

[I suggest leaving out nuclear complications from this discussion, unless you earnestly believe we could obliterate either country without risk of being obliterated ourselves. The same applies to them.]
 
What training would you have given to him to allow him to judge that rounds 1,2 and 3 were perfectly legally and round 4 was going to land him in prison? Given that the context was there was about 0.5 seconds between rounds 3 and 4, it was dark, he was firing at a moving target and looking through a SUSAT.
How about "it's not trying to kill me, so why shoot at all"? Round 4 was definitely fired at something that was no longer a threat to himself or his colleagues, it's just that rounds 1/2/3 were arguably justifiable if he believed his life or those of his comrades to be in danger, and firing was the only way to stop that happening. Of course, the IA drill of "stamping on the leg", and resulting conviction for attempting to pervert the course of justice, would rather tend to suggest that the more grown-up types on the patrol knew damn well it wasn't justified.

You put a 19-year old out in the dark, on a patrol, not a VCP, not briefed about joyriders, car comes through and someone shouts "stop it"... and his first action isn't restraint, it's use of lethal force? I'd be more interested in whether he was the scapegoat for poor unit training and leadership..
 
How about "it's not trying to kill me, so why shoot at all"? Round 4 was definitely fired at something that was no longer a threat to himself or his colleagues, it's just that rounds 1/2/3 were arguably justifiable if he believed his life or those of his comrades to be in danger, and firing was the only way to stop that happening.
The judge found that rounds 1,2 and 3 (plus all the rounds everyone else fired, including the one that killed the driver) were legally fired because the car was a threat to life. Round 4 was judged to be illegally fired because the car had passed the last member of the patrol and wasn't a threat to life any more. The judge didn't explain how Clegg was meant to know that it was no longer a threat to life in the 0.5 seconds between rounds 3 and 4, in the dark, while looking through a SUSAT. All of that is academic now as he was cleared of all charges at the re-trial.
Of course, the IA drill of "stamping on the leg", and resulting conviction for attempting to pervert the course of justice, would rather tend to suggest that the more grown-up types on the patrol knew damn well it wasn't justified.
The 'stamping on the leg' (fairly sure it was actually done with a rifle butt) was a panic reaction, and not done by Clegg. The reason they panicked was the absolutely woeful state of ROE training at the time where young soldiers were continuously told if they fucked up they would go to prison. I don't remember being taught at any time that 'honestly held belief' was a defence in law until at least 10 years later.
You put a 19-year old out in the dark, on a patrol, not a VCP, not briefed about joyriders, car comes through and someone shouts "stop it"... and his first action isn't restraint, it's use of lethal force? I'd be more interested in whether he was the scapegoat for poor unit training and leadership..

'Rolling VCPs may have been a shit tactic, but it was a recognised tactic. It wasn't something that this patrol just made up.

Clegg may not have been briefed about those specific joyriders but he, like all of them, would have been aware of the high risk of joyriders crashing VCPs on any night of the week. I can say that with confidence because I was a 19 year old private working about 4 miles North of him that night.

Where did you get the bit about someone shouting 'stop it'? My memory is that the first rounds were fired after the cop had to dive out the way when the car accelerated towards him. The way Peake drove that car through the patrol, in a narrow, dark country road, was life threatening. That was accepted by the judge. Why then should he have 'shown restraint'?
 
'Rolling VCPs may have been a shit tactic, but it was a recognised tactic. It wasn't something that this patrol just made up.
Granted... but then, did he know he was taking part in a rolling VCP, if the Pl Comd didn't even brief them on the purpose of the patrol?

I thought the whole point was that any attempt to crash out of the VCP, was dealt with by the stop group up the road? Out of curiosity, was Clegg in the Stop Group?
 
I'm sure this has never happened on ARRSE before, but we appear to have strayed somewhat from the thread subject, although I agree with many of the points about Lee Clegg.

The review led by a retired judge selected by the MOD will be into the way allegations of wrongdoing during overseas military operations are investigated. Such a review appears to me desirable in itself, but the announcement has been criticised as an attempt to divert attention from criticisms of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill currently under consideration by a House of Commons Bill Committee.
 
I'm sure this has never happened on ARRSE before, but we appear to have strayed somewhat from the thread subject, although I agree with many of the points about Lee Clegg.

The review led by a retired judge selected by the MOD will be into the way allegations of wrongdoing during overseas military operations are investigated. Such a review appears to me desirable in itself, but the announcement has been criticised as an attempt to divert attention from criticisms of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill currently under consideration by a House of Commons Bill Committee.

so will this judge pre-guess or post-guess the Service Prosecuting Authority / CPS ?
 
Top