Victimising witnesses to a service complaint or Major AGAI 67 investigations

Discussion in 'Military Discipline' started by kennys-go-nad, Aug 12, 2013.

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. Victimising witnesses to a service complaint or Major AGAI 67 investigations

    As the topic thread suggests. Is this still happening with regards to service people who have been named as witness to a service complaint and or witness to Major AGAI 67 investigations?

    After the Deepcut review some measures were put in place in order to allow a complainant to take the external route when submitting a complaint, if they felt under pressure from their Chain Of Command, there was also supposed to be a form of protection for witnesses with in JSP's for SC.

    From a few cases I have seen and from several reports it appears to be.

    Scenario

    A witness becomes victim as the defendant makes outrageous and unsupported claims against the witness after their statements are disclosed. Post case the witness has glowing reports and has never put a foot wrong. As soon as and after witness statement discloser to the defendant they become the most un-trustworthy person to walk the face of the earth and accused of much worse.

    The defendant then focuses his attention on destroying the credibility of the witness or witnesses, were the Deciding Officer takes the view of the defendant due to his rank and without any credible evidence other than the defendants word after the facts. The Deciding Officer then adds further to the Victimisation by openly accusing the witness of wrong doing. I will add,( without any evidence both post case or otherwise other than the word of the Defendant) that the witness lied on purpose and made his/her account of events up, in order to discredit the defendant with an ulterior and more sinister motive. Again the motive is just speculation on the defendants part without a shred of evidence.

    When the witness discovers this, they are effectively ordered that they cannot complain or request a retraction of damaging and unsupported comments or they will face further retribution.

    I thought Witness nobbling was a thing of the past and went out with the Kray Twins, but has anyone witnessed this first hand?

    Discuss.

    PM me if you feel you will be Victimised for posting your thoughts on the matter :)
     
  2. I've seen witnesses refuse to give evidence or indeed, to have anything to say about the matter in question, through fear that this sort of thing may happen to them. They weren't threatened, they just knew that as soon as they opened their mouth, they'd be committing professional suicide. And they were in the SIB.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. We know where you live!
     
  4. Great! Can you tell me. I'm lost.
     
  5. Careful...that unguarded statement could attract a comission!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. A recent investigation has certainly left me with a sour taste in the mouth.
    Having been called as a witness by the RMP to a tame incident involving a couple of idiots and alcohol (non-violent) a friend was subsequently subjected to AGAI action for not stopping the incident. In attempting to clarify what happened (him being sober) he was then charged for NOT being involved, a charge instigated by an outgoing CO who has never met him, not the RMP.

    *The incident itself was a flash-in-the-pan moment which couldn't realistically have been foreseen*

    The lads are now advised not to volunteer any information to the RMP during any investigation, and to claim they were not even present if possible.
    Justice my fecking arse.
     
  7. Twas ever thus. No point in reporting a crime because you'll be seen as either a) A whistleblower or b) The person who allowed the crime to happen.

    Look at what happened to that fat medic who was dumb enough to complain about his TV being eaten on these very pages.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. All too true, VG, but in this particular instance he was called as a witness simply to clarify the events in question, he was not the complainant, and then got his arrse chewed.

    I reiterate, the RMP had no hand in it, this was the CoC acting outside of the RMP investigation (which, incidentally, found that no offence had been committed).

    And as such my advice is to steer clear of all proceedings and feign ignorance. The prime purpose of any such investigation is to lay blame at the lowest rank possible and avoid potential embarrassment higher up.
     
  9. What *******. They could have at least planted some evidence or lied in their notebooks, or something.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Never :)
     
  11. I was once investigated by the RMP, they brought me back to a second interview, and popped out the room for something, leaving the both copies of the formal (1st) interview tapes in the same office as me, when I left the 2nd Interview, guess what came with me.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  12. Your beret, fags and lighter I presume.
     
  13. An overriding shame at being investigated for sex offences against children?
     
  14. I was only joking about the PMs but looks like this is not an uncommon practice. So, what is a serviceperson to do if they find their character is being slated for doing the right thing or subject to un warranted pressure from above not to spill the beans. Redress :) "tongue firmly in cheek"
     
  15. This was in my inbox today. Any thoughts and has anyone heard of this being used elsewhere?


    27. Inaction to prevent bullying.

    If, in an employment environment, a superior fails to take adequate steps to protect a subordinate even after complaints are made by that subordinate, the superior’s inaction is likely to be negligent. Case law on this point is widely available, but Green provides one of the clearest warnings (Green was awarded £850,000):

    ‘I am satisfied that the defendant was in breach of its duty of care to the claimant in failing to take any or any adequate steps to protect her from such behaviour. The line managers knew or ought to have known what was going on. [An employee] had drawn it to the attention of HR at a meeting… The claimant raised the problem… A reasonable and responsible employer would have intervened as soon as he became aware of the problem. The claimant's managers… as Head of Department simply failed to take any or any adequate steps to address it.

    That was frankly acknowledged by [him]. [He] acknowledged that he was aware of the complaints that the claimant was making, but did nothing about them. In short the management was weak and ineffectual. The managers collectively closed their eyes to what was going on, no doubt in the hope that the problem would go away. Had the claimant's managers intervened as they ought to have done, there were obvious steps that could have been taken to stop the bullying. …by whatever means the bullying could and should have been stopped.

    It is also to be noted that there was a culpable want of care on the part of the defendant's HR department. That was conceded by [the] Head of the HR department, who said in evidence that an investigation into the bullying by the women should have been undertaken by HR following the series of meetings between the claimant and [an HR employee].’ (my emphases) - Mr Justice Owen, Green v DB Group Services (UK) Limited [2006] EWHC 1898 (QB), paras 102-104.