Treatment of Soldiers accused of offences in Iraq

I tend to take stories that use such terms as "But a military dossier leaked by a senior officer within the MoD", "An email from one senior officer to another directly involved" etc etc with a huge pinch of salt. If a senior officer has the balls to stand up for a set of ORs, then do You think that he would do it anonymously.
Yes. However he might also be mindful of his own career...courage sometimes has to take account of the hygiene factors and not everyone can blithely ignore wife, children, pension et cetera but at the same time they may feel that "something needs to be done" and the whistle blown.
You should read Col Tim's book 'Rules of Engagement' to see how a career can be wrecked by sticking your neck out. The campaign against him was politically motivated and began in the Pentagon. The RMP investigation was a sham with the real story being supressed and spun by MOD under orders not to upset Swiss Tony's paymaster in the White House.
tattybadger said:

This story is reported in today's Telegraph - it's a poor indictment of the RMP and the way that soldiers are treated by the MoD if accused of an offence then vindicated.
Different country, different army, same sort of idiots in charge.
The officer concerned,is the son of a very good friend.He joined The Corps a bit late,after Uni and a short career(sucessfull) in the City.He's the sort of officer that the Army needs.Let's hope that he's not put off,forever,by this?
Typical. The RMP cover themselves in glory once again,
I worked for many years with SIB RMP on disciplinary and courts martial and are only too familiar with their .'mindset'

SIB RMP are no different from their CIVPOL counterparts in the respect that they exist to secure a 'result' and that result is a conviction!

They do not exist to examine the truth of anything and their reluctance to examine exculpatory evidence is symptomatic of their purpose in securing a 'result'.

If section 9 statements are not taken from exculpatory witnesses than there is no likelihood and therefore no danger to the prosecution of the defence seeking pre-trial 'disclosure' of them!

They, like CIVPOL will argue that the process is 'adversarial' but what both SIB RMP and CIVPOL tend to forget is that the adversarial process takes place in a court of competent jurisdiction, be it a DCM or Magistrates or Crown Court and the adversarial system does not commence with the requirement at the investigatory stage to produce the 'result'!

Regards and best wishes
PM(A) cannot just hunch his shoulders and hope this goes away. The attitude Tolis details has always existed. In good sections, the RSM stamped all over it and it did not cause a problem. However, if left to run or, even worse, encouraged, things went to hell in handcart very fast. There must be a really serious inquiry here. Those responsible for the duff investigation is such be proved have to be got rid. If the allegation is false, the inventor(s) must receive serious punishment. To claim 'busy', stress and strain or any other excuse will not do.
From a civvy old bill point of view I can not believe that anyone could conduct any investigation so badly that they would not interview eye witnesses to incidents and not take statements from them. This alone is a complete breach of PACE which I thought RMP were supposed to conduct investigations under?

That is basic investigation and nothing more, the people involved, if the facts are true should be ashamed that they have left their corps open to such criticism. Most people dont like the RMP as it is, things like this only go on the increase peoples dislike of them. Not to mention the fact that they appear to have stiched their own guys up well and truely.

Although stories like this should be taken with a pinch of salt (as already stated) I am surprised that the case ever got as far as it did. Having just joined a RMP (v) unit myself I hope that the standards of investigation are better than this appears to be, if its the truth.....
The executants of discipline are never very popular but one ultimately realises that they are absolutely necessary but one would have thought that the very least a soldier, whatever his rank, is entitled to expect is fairness and due process.

I hope the stories are wrong, I did have the privilege of working with some very good dedicated and conscientious investigators at 115 Pro Coy in Osnabruck from 1980 to 1985 but I also came across some very dubious characters in that and subsequent postings.
I got nicked by 115 in 1984 and interviewed over the possibility of being charged with 115 attempted murders !
An email from one senior officer to another directly involved states: "In terms of this case ever reaching a court martial, there seems neither the evidence to proceed nor the political will to dismiss; and so it rumbles on, with poor Capt [name deleted] stuck in the middle.
Previously I thought that there is the only important thing for any court - namely is an individual guilty or not. What is a role of 'the political will'? Maybe previously (no matter were the soldiers guilty or not) there was 'the political will' to make them guilty but now there is no 'the political wll' and so the case has been closed.

I doubt that it is a good exaple for new-born democracies (like the Russian one).


Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Shocking, truly shocking. When I read this yesterday, the wife had to send me outside for quite a long time to calm down. As ever with these things, it's good to see the RMP acting in the interests of military justice again (I've had a few events with them over the years as they tried to stitch up my blokes).

To be fair, I have met some bloody good RMP - sorry, that should be AGC(Provo) - blokes over the years, only they seem to be few and far between. The rest seem to be on a mission to get as many of the lads as possible.
Why is it that whenever there is a failed prosecution that people always take the position that some sprog LCPL or SIB SGT ran the entire prosecution and disciplinary process? I am not defending what could have been a poor investigation but this direct criticism of SIB in court is becoming a defence position as much as making the assumption that whatever comes out of an Iraqi witnesses mouth must me financially motivated. Its called tactics remember the character of the accused can not be besmirched but everone else is fair game.
Anyway back to my original point... Once an investigation file is published it leaves the hands of RMP or SIB who have little or no control over it from then on. Funny old thing but it is the CO of the soldiers concerned who makes the next decision which is whether to prosecute or not. OK so he gets advice but it is not from RMP but higher formation and ALS. There follows a stringent decision making process which decides whether a prosecution should take place. Once a court is convened RMP or SIB only get involved if there is an indication that the accused may plead not guilty, yes in the majority of cases there is a guilty plea (I wonder why that is?). In these cases the RMP individual appears as a prosecution witness not the President of the Court Martial.


sniper_bob said:
You should read Col Tim's book 'Rules of Engagement' to see how a career can be wrecked by sticking your neck out. The campaign against him was politically motivated and began in the Pentagon. The RMP investigation was a sham with the real story being supressed and spun by MOD under orders not to upset Swiss Tony's paymaster in the White House.
Tim, is that you? (I note that at this precise time you have one post to your tally and of course the quick plug for the book). Col Tim was accused of assault and was investigated as would any other soldier or officer be, had they been accused of a similar offence. SB, you say that the RMP investigation was a sham. Was that claim based upon your in depth personal knowledge of what went on or do you base it upon what you read in Collin's book, which of course isn't one sided at all. Not one little bit.
And of course good old tim didn't ever send any of his own blokes up the swanny based on evidence from RMP reports

Similar threads