Mendonca to leave before they AGAI 67 him?

#4
"These clowns at MOD "

Nowt to do with MOD, blame the army prosecution side.
 
#5
We could do with him getting a job in one of the UKs prisons.

See if he can get some of the nations peados, murders and theives to beat themselves to death without recourse to the authorities in charge of them.
 
#6
"But it is now clear that there are those within the Army who are still determined to make him a scapegoat for the failings of others.
Could Mrs. Mendonca define "failings of others"?

The failing of 'others' I see at the moment , is the failure to ensure that a prisoner didn't beat himself to death.
 
#7
Dunno the background, so can't comment on the case issues.

But - this does seem to raise the 'double jeopardy' issue, doesn't it? If he's been court martialled and found not guilty, is he still liable to be done again, or is his wife over-stating the case?

Any legal eagles know the rules re this sort of point?
 
#8
I wonder if, by the 'failings of others', he is suggesting that he was not as well supported as he might have been in the lead up to the Court Martial, Tim Collins-stylee.
 

Bouillabaisse

LE
Book Reviewer
#9
And if a court martial and all the attendant investigations aren't an "internal disciplinary inquiry" what is it? It does smack of a determination to get him.
 
#10
chumpycheeks said:
Dunno the background, so can't comment on the case issues.

But - this does seem to raise the 'double jeopardy' issue, doesn't it? If he's been court martialled and found not guilty, is he still liable to be done again, or is his wife over-stating the case?

Any legal eagles know the rules re this sort of point?
I may be wrong but my understanding is that 'they' still have the option to 'punish' using administrative action rather than disciplinary.
Ready to be corrected however......
SP
 
#11
I may be wrong but my understanding is that 'they' still have the option to 'punish' using administrative action rather than disciplinary.
Ready to be corrected however......
It certainly looks that way. If so, I can see how one could feel a bit 'hunted'. Wonder if he'll try taking the CoC to task via an employment tribunal?
 
#12
PartTimePongo said:
"But it is now clear that there are those within the Army who are still determined to make him a scapegoat for the failings of others.
Could Mrs. Mendonca define "failings of others"?

The failing of 'others' I see at the moment , is the failure to ensure that a prisoner didn't beat himself to death.
Surely a pretty significant failing?
 
#13
That's Colonel Tim Collins out, Mendonca out..... shades of Stalin's purging of the Soviet General Staff pre-1941.......must be a major conflict coming up so the regime has to purge competent officers :?
 

Bouillabaisse

LE
Book Reviewer
#14
_Artemis_ said:
PartTimePongo said:
"But it is now clear that there are those within the Army who are still determined to make him a scapegoat for the failings of others.
Could Mrs. Mendonca define "failings of others"?

The failing of 'others' I see at the moment , is the failure to ensure that a prisoner didn't beat himself to death.
Surely a pretty significant failing?
I didn't follow the whole case but I had assumed that that was what he was effectively charged with? And if he wasn't and they believe he did then why was he not charged?
 
#15
There is no double jeopardy. The criminal proceedings are at an end.

AGAI 67 can only result in administrative sanctions.

Any serving officer and soldier could be subject to both criminal proceedings and administrative action in the event on an alleged failing.

What is wrong about this is that it is now 4 years after the event and the matter still isn't resolved. That cannot be right.
 
#16
It would seem until the facts behind the death of a prisoner whilst in our custody, is resolved correctly! The fallout from this will not go away, and will continue to haunt the entire regiment!
 
#17
chumpycheeks said:
Dunno the background, so can't comment on the case issues.

But - this does seem to raise the 'double jeopardy' issue, doesn't it? If he's been court martialled and found not guilty, is he still liable to be done again, or is his wife over-stating the case?

Any legal eagles know the rules re this sort of point?
Double jeopardy - autrefois acquit, was abolished by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 following the McPherson inquiry into the Stephen Lawrence murder.

It allows for a prosecution appeal where "new and compelling" evidence has been discovered.

There would have to have been some major fcuk up at the first Trial since the judge accepted a defence submission of "no case to answer" - in other words, they basically had no evidence against him.

I haven't read this story so I don't know what they're trying to do to him now, but I don't think there is anything that would stop the Army from disciplining him in some way - do officers get section 69'nd?? :D
 
#18
legal_eagle said:
chumpycheeks said:
Dunno the background, so can't comment on the case issues.

But - this does seem to raise the 'double jeopardy' issue, doesn't it? If he's been court martialled and found not guilty, is he still liable to be done again, or is his wife over-stating the case?

Any legal eagles know the rules re this sort of point?
Double jeopardy - autrefois acquit, was abolished by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 following the McPherson inquiry into the Stephen Lawrence murder.

It allows for a prosecution appeal where "new and compelling" evidence has been discovered.

There would have to have been some major fcuk up at the first Trial since the judge accepted a defence submission of "no case to answer" - in other words, they basically had no evidence against him.

I haven't read this story so I don't know what they're trying to do to him now, but I don't think there is anything that would stop the Army from disciplining him in some way - do officers get section 69'nd?? :D
As stated above, what is apparently being proposed is Administrative Action under AGAI 67, not further Disciplinary Action under AA55. Accordingly, there is no question of double jeopardy - it is not a criminal act being considered, it is whether there has been a professional failing.
 
#19
legal_eagle said:
chumpycheeks said:
Dunno the background, so can't comment on the case issues.

But - this does seem to raise the 'double jeopardy' issue, doesn't it? If he's been court martialled and found not guilty, is he still liable to be done again, or is his wife over-stating the case?

Any legal eagles know the rules re this sort of point?
Double jeopardy - autrefois acquit, was abolished by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 following the McPherson inquiry into the Stephen Lawrence murder.

It allows for a prosecution appeal where "new and compelling" evidence has been discovered.

There would have to have been some major fcuk up at the first Trial since the judge accepted a defence submission of "no case to answer" - in other words, they basically had no evidence against him.

I haven't read this story so I don't know what they're trying to do to him now, but I don't think there is anything that would stop the Army from disciplining him in some way - do officers get section 69'nd?? :D

As stated by DILFOR, this is nothing to do with the Army Act, this is under AGAI 67.

If you need to catch up on your AGAIs

http://www.army.mod.uk/servingsoldier/termsofserv/discmillaw/current_issues/agai_67.htm

Speaking generally, many of the minor offences that would have been dealt with under S69 or by unofficial punishment 10-15 years ago, are now dealt with under AGAI 67.
 
#20
Well then, so long as it has nothing to do with the criminal law, the Army can screw him as much as they want discipline wise. I'm sure we can all remember that much!!! :D
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads