No Charges Over Death

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by mbwest, Apr 27, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. No charges will be brought over the death of a tank commander who died in Iraq after being ordered to give up his body armour.

    full story:,,30000-13520897,00.html

    Any views on this?
    What about looking to the government and asking why we didn't have the equipment we needed?
  2. Effective equipment distribution definitely needs to be addressed. I brought this tragic incident up in a letter to my MP (Tory) a few weeks ago whilst also requesting a PQ into the claims that media personnel arriving in Iraq are automatically issued body armour. I'm still awaiting a response. Good job I'm not holding my breath. :roll:
  3. Some time ago I also brought up the matter of equipment distribution with my MP (Cabinet Minister), and received a waffly non-answer from Don Touhig.
  4. It grips my sh1t..........just because there was "insufficient evidence to institute criminal proceedings" doesn't mean that some-one wasn't morally accountable. If an army at war cannot perform its job because of logistical issues then the trail goes upwards and the buck stops at cabinet level imho. The SofS for Defence should have resigned.........I hate f*cking Labour so they should all resign...........

    Rant finished....

    Baggy out.......................
  5. Lord Goldsmith said that attempts by the head of the Royal Military Police Special Investigations Branch to re-open the case had been "resisted" by the 1st UK Armoured Division chain of command.

    "I was concerned that the intervention by the chain of command, and the delays in the case, could have led defence lawyers raising abuse of process arguments had the soldiers been charged with criminal offences," he said.

    It seems the AG only asked for an investigation by the Met, because the head of the SIB was getting the runaround from senior officers. Perhaps if the Army hierarchy had not been so obstructive, the soldiers involved might have been able to put this matter behind them long before now.
  6. spike7451

    spike7451 RIP

    I heard it on Radio 2 news(Only caught the tail end of the bullitin so excuse me if my facts are off.).They said the Soldier who fired the shot had his sight's adjusted for long range,One shot hit an Iraqi & another 2 hit the unfortunate Sgt.
  7. I personnally think that 1st UK Armd CoC had it right and this whole thing should have gone no further - they had reviewed the case and didn't see the need for SIB to be involved (defending their troops - good thing!). I don't see how 6 soldiers being put up for very serious charges for just doing there job has helped anybody at all. I admit that an initial investigation is these circumstances, i.e. a tragic accident, is always required but to re-open the case and for it to go as far as it did it outrageous.

    There are real questions about kit issue, and not just in this instance, but what has that got to do with the charges aaginst 6 individuals? I'm very glad to hear that this particular case against the 6 has been stopped. It should have never have got this far. It shouldn't, however, cloud or misguide any future cases that may need to be addressed at a much higher level over real problems.

    Rant over...

  8. Blue on Blue is tragic but when does it become criminal?

    As I see it here are two elements to this case.

    1. Plate issue was not up to war scale.
    2. Sgt Roberts was shot and killed by Friendlies

    Now point one is a disgrace that someone should be made accountable for.

    Point two is a tragedy but unless there was criminal intent to kill Sgt Roberts, or criminal negligence in the discharge of weapons - what charges could be brought? How can it take so long to clear the guys?
  9. Blue on blue doesn't necessarily mean that a criminal offence has occurred, but on such occasions there must be an invesitgation by the police in order to establish the facts of the case, which may identify the cause behind the death. Not to investigate such incidents is tantamount to neglect of duty and if the Head of the SIB was given the run around as it would appear then those behind it should be investigated for attempting to pervert the course of justice or obstruction at the least.

    These matters are investigated not only to prove that foul play has occured, but also to prove that it has not.

  10. Ignore the red herring of kit issue. Booty has hit the nail on the head.
  11. I don't know if we are allowed to discuss this case now that it is no longer going to court and I have no inside knowledge. But if the unfortunate Sgt Roberts was hit by a chain gun at point-blank range I doubt plates would have saved him. Personaly I feel that blue-on-blues are never acceptable but at the same time you will never be able to remove the risk of friendly fire. Also it's unrealistic to expect every soldier to have all the kit he is ever going to need all the time and then blame the govt. when they don't have it.

    No disrespt meant to Sgt Roberts or his Regiment.
  12. WRONG WRONG WRONG!! It is realistic to expect the right kit, at the right time, in the right place. The fact that the body armour might not have saved him is besides the point. He should have had it! End of subject.
  13. spike7451

    spike7451 RIP

    The fact that Sgt Roberts was ORDERED by his seniors to hand over his body armour to someone else beggars belief.If anything,The person that gave such a order has Sgt Roberts death on his concience, a fact that'll hopefully make the event happening again unlikly.
    The supply chain should also bear some responsibility by ensuring that EVERY soldier has the correct level of kit inthe future.
  14. Well they should be looking at the politicians who sent the troops to war under equipped
  15. Why were they using a chain gun at such short range? Isnt that a bit over the top for one person?