TA Unit Investigations/Charges

Discussion in 'Army Pay, Claims & JPA' started by Baldrick66, Nov 5, 2005.

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. Just had a rather long and interesting conversation with 2 mates who are serving at with a TA unit.

    A few months ago the vehicle they were traveling in was flashed by a private mobile Gatso. Now a couple of months on the ticket has filtered through the system along with a photograph of said vehicle. The photo has obviously been enhanced, however nether the driver or passenger can be identified from the picture. Neither of the lads can remember who was driving as they were on exercise at the time and drove on this particular road several times a day. (I can assure you if either knew for sure they would admit it)
    One of the guys off his own back spoke to the Camera Partnership involved and because of what they admit is 'Inconclusive evidence' and the speed involved 56MPH in a 50MPH limit they are unlikely to proceed without an admission from one of them as to who was driving. As far as he was concerned it was a simple matter of return the paper work saying they don't know who was driving and that would be it. (Don't ask about the name on the work ticket as that is a different matter thats been delt with!)
    Now the SPSI at their unit has an axe to grind with one of the guys and has passed the paper work up to Div and with the assistance of the RSM is demanding written statements from both of them or he is calling in the SIB to investigate. Now bare in mind both are SNCO's and both have civi jobs that maybe affected by points on their licence. I would say the unit is conducting an unsafe investigation and is using oppression to make one of the cough just to keep Bde/Div/SPSI happy. As far as I'm concerned any statement that is not given voluntry is an unsafe document. As for being ordered to possibly incriminate yourself I find that totally unbelievable in this day and age. They have been told that regardless of the outcome one of them will be looking at a sec 70 charge and summary hearing. Now call me old fashioned but didn't double charging an individual for the same offence get knocked on the head in 2000 following the acceptance of the human rights act?
    Anyone got any thoughts on the matter?
  2. Ummmmmm. A differcult one. But if the picture can't tell which one was driving then it looks like they have no case. As for the work ticket? All i can say is the one with the name on the ticket is the driver. i am sure it is the responsibility of the driver to annotate his details on the said ticket. Driver GUILTY
  3. The unit is obliged to identify the driver of the vehicle. This will normally be done by reference to the work ticket, which should detail the driver.

    If it doesn't, the unit had best prepare for unwelcome attention - it is an offence in itself to permit a vehicle to be moved without the appropriate signatory authorities on the paperwork.

    Once the unit have identified the driver, that individual is obliged to fill in the paperwork and decide whether to plead downrange. He would be prosecuted as a private citizen in any event - once the unit have indicated who the driver is, it has nothing to do with them. Therefore, the SIB would have no place in getting involved, and given their workload, I would be very surprised if they did.

    Also remember that it can take months for the paperwork to return from the Speed Camera people - if it ever does (over 65% of people who are flashed never hear about it again)...

    My final point would be that anyone who demands statements is on very thin ice indeed - and if it goes wrong is potentially opening themselves up to all kinds of crap.

    If I were in their shoes, I would already be reaching for the lawyers...
  4. Thinking some more...

    ...honesty is always the best policy and it will probably cost less in the long run if the driver just puts his hands up to it! :D
  5. Anyone who drives a military vehicle should know the procedure for filling out the works ticket correctly. There is a section for change of driver details where you enter your name, date and time of taking over driving. Therefore, whoevers name is down for driving at the time of the offence is the guilty party. All too often people just jump into a vehicle and drive it away with no thought for the consequences, what if there'd been a bad RTA and the person driving hadn't signed the works ticket? The s**t would really hit the fan then!
  6. So what's the problem?

    6 miles over the limit is hardly the original sin. Pursuing this matter would not be cost effective. They should consider themselves lucky and make a mental note not to do it again. I don't condone nor advocate the breaking of speed limits but the whole scenario is bordering on the ridiculous.

    Oh, and the PSI needs to get a life.
  7. Guys

    As I stated in the original post, I wanted to keep the work ticket issue seperate, however seeing people want to know........ Seem the unit in question ordered their guys to put thier names on the work ticket once and leave it open for the duration of the exercise. Now we all know that shouldn't happen but it does in the real world show me a unit that hasn't done same at some stage and I'll show you liars. Both names were on the work ticket along with four others, but the bottom line is that, it was a unit policy that has bit the unit on the arrse. Possibly a reason for them pursuing the two lads?
  8. More reasons not to join the TA, methinks.

    The unit should be happy that noone is getting stuck on for speeding.

    The RSM should have a quiet word with the two SNCOs for setting a poor example re. veh admin and that's it, matter closed.

    FFS, have people nothing better to do?

    As for the HRA, there is nothing to stop an organisation instituting internal proceedings as opposed to criminal matters. You see it quite often (and might do with some paratroopers soon too, I'd imagine).

    So, as long as the RMP deal with these two under QRs and don't attempt to have anything to do with the original offence then I'd imagine there's no problem, except of course for morale and retention within your unit :roll:

  9. "Sir, I have no recollection of any events on the dates to which you refer" :wink:

    Remember you have a right not to comment for fear of incriminating yourself.

  10. I thought it was standard practice to put your name on the work ticket once and that was it? Seems our unit are guilty of the same offence.
  11. No mate if you change drivers then you have to re-enter you details and sign on the back. Also remember that legally your passnger cannot sign to authorise a journey (even if he/she is on the auth signee list)
  12. There is a weakness in this argument, surley the last driver has his/her details on the ticket, but if the next driver fails to sign then the first driver is the only one on it, even though its been driven since! I know the works tickets are to be closed down however on long exercises the ticket stays open and drivers change over a longer period of time, I 've seen drivers return a Vehicle and been told not to close the ticket as the next driver will be using it soon, what defence has the first driver got?
  13. I too thought you put your name on the workticket once for the month??!
    As for the last name on the workticket being responsible-no way. What happens if Pte Jones drives the vehicle after having properly filled out the workticket, then parks it up; Pte Bloggs then jumps in the vehicle but doesn't bother appending his name and gets flashed. Is Pte Jones liable? Certainly my last unit exercise, the worktickets were opened up for the duration of the ex. As for being coerced to admit guilt, you cannot be forced to make a statement incriminating yourself-part of the caution being "You do not have to say anything...."
    Rest assured though, if it is correct that you should add your name each time the driver changes, they will try to discipline the guys involved on this basis. However, again they have to show who was responsible for not filling in the workticket correctly. Take a robust stand against any questioning, and seek legal advice. This should stop any improper questioning.
    Beware though of AGAI 67-they may seek to use this.
  14. Latest update:

    Seems this unit is now completely ****. Seem the two SNCO's concerned have been interviewed by the RSM for their poor performance over the last six months and have now been put on six month warning orders for poor attendance!
    Talk about trying to be vindictive, both the guys have over 50 days each so far this year. This follows the unit attempt to involve RMP who told the unit in so many words not the waste their time. Life in the TA? I'm starting to think is it work it anymore!
  15. msr

    msr LE

    I'd be reaching for my lawyers. The contract states 27 days per annum. You will find yourself on very thin ice if you try to force people to come in for more than that.