Walting with medals may not be illegal

#1
This caught my eye....

I'm impressed that Mr Day managed to time his act of waltery to perfection, wrongfooting legislators in such a complex manner!

Taking it as read that the stupid old Roger Day, 62, is a member of the Fantasy Commando for wearing a medals he didn't earn, at a Remembrance Day parade on 11 November 2009, none the less his prosecution and conviction is a waste of time and money because it arguably wasn't a criminal offence for him to do so on the date as charged.

Mr Day was charged under s.197 of the Army Act 1955 which would have been sound except for one thing: the entire 1955 Act (bar a few scraps) had been repealed on 31 October 2009, 11 days earlier.

Here it gets technical. Mr Day was charged under the Army Act 1955, which (it is argued) was repealed by Schedule 17 of the Armed forces Act 2006. The Services Discipline Acts (SDAs) were continued for a while under a Continuation Order, but eventually these repeals took effect via a Commencement Order, laid before parliament on 5 May 2009 and coming in to effect on 31 October 2009.

Be sure not to mix up Commencement Orders and Continuation Orders in the next paragraph.

However, on 8 July 2009 there was a Continuation Order which appeared to extend the Army Act 1955 until 8th November 2010. It picks up the dates and "knits them on" from the Continuation Order of 2008. The exact dates run from 8th November one year, to 8th November the next, which is a funny date and must have been picked for some historical reason. But the Commencement Order took effect on 31 October 2009. It over-rode the Continuation Order for the period up to 8 November 2009. There was nothing for a new Continuation Order to extend. The repeals had already happened on Halloween 2009. It makes no sense to have a subsequent Continuation Order re-animating an Act which had been firmly repealed by the proper procedure, after an eight day hiatus.

The Continuation Order is a ghost; something accidentally made but with no Army Act 1955 to continue, because it had been repealed. In any case the explanatory note of the Continuation Order, (which is not part of the order), reminds us that the 2006 Armed Forces Act takes precedence:

...by virtue of section 382(6) of the 2006 Act, this Order does not continue in force any provision of any of the Service Discipline Acts beyond such time as the repeal of that provision by the 2006 Act may be brought into force.

And the Armed Forces Act 2006 section 382(6) says:

(6) Nothing in this section or in any Order under subsection (3) continues any provision of the Army Act 1955 (3 & 4 Eliz. 2 c. 18), the Air Force Act 1955 (3 & 4 Eliz. 2 c. 19) or the Naval Discipline Act 1957 (c. 53) beyond the time when the repeal of that provision by this Act is brought into force.


The repeal was brought in to force by the Commencement Order No. 5, section 4, which says:


4. The whole Act, in so far as it is not already in force, except the following provisions—

(here it lists a handful of exceptions, none of which are schedule 17, the repeals, thus bringing them in to force in their entirety)

shall come into force on 31st October 2009.

The CPS seems to want to have the Army Act 1995 popping out of existence for eight days between 31 October and 8 November 2009, like a game of legal WhackaMole, while the legislators wanted all but a few clauses of the Armed Forces Act 2006 in operation on 31 October 2009, and said so by laying the Commencement Order in front of parliament.


In Nuneaton magistrates court the matter of which law was in operation was raised. Was it the 2006 Armed Forces Act and Commencement Order duly endorsed by Parliament, or the Continuation order before the Privy Council? The magistrate, Mr Alan Jones, felt able to rule on constitutional and administrative law and convicted Mr Day.
 
#2
Forget all that, why wasn't he just banged under section 69 like everyone else was lol, just farting out of time incurred Her Majesty's displeasure with that baby...............
 
#3
It may well have been repealed but my low-brain cell count understanding of law is that you can still be tried for a crime under previous legislation if the offence was committed and the charge was laid before the new legislation took effect. He could not have committed an act under the AFA because it hadn't come into law when he committed his act.
 
#4
Rapierman said:
Forget all that, why wasn't he just banged under section 69 like everyone else was lol, just farting out of time incurred Her Majesty's displeasure with that baby...............
Because he wasnt serving, lol. Unlike s69, the section he was charged under applies to anyone even if they are not subject to military law.
 
#5
MrPVRd,

I'm confused...

Thread title: Walting with medals may not be illegal

Post content: complicated legal speak describing much confusion, but

Final words: The magistrate, Mr Alan Jones, felt able to rule on constitutional and administrative law and convicted Mr Day.

So, despite the merry-go-round of legal speak, and the apparent lack of law as you initially suggested, he got convicted.

Have I missed something?
 
#7
hackle said:
Rapierman said:
Forget all that, why wasn't he just banged under section 69 like everyone else was lol, just farting out of time incurred Her Majesty's displeasure with that baby...............
Because he wasnt serving, lol. Unlike s69, the section he was charged under applies to anyone even if they are not subject to military law.
I hope you gathered I was taking the proverbial in my post, and I realise section 69 refers to conduct of military discipline.
Mind you you would think by all those medals that guy would be green right through if you cut him in half!!!!!
Let's hope for once the state can spend some money on legal advice far above his means and have some justice for all those people that actually earned those decorations through actual bona fide service and acts.

RM
 
#8
Interesting article MrPVRd from legal technicalities and modus operandi aspects. A clever ‘defence’ in view of no question he was not entitled to wear what he did in public. The bit I find a bit odd (just opinion from a Joe Public layman’s view), is the magistrate ”felt able to rule on constitutional and administrative law and convicted Mr Day.”?

A ‘clever’ or ‘last ditch’ effort told me in the distant past by an articled clerk I knew, involved three men up for the murder of another. The essence of the charge was that they had planned and carried out bludgeoning a man to death and thereafter disposed of the body by throwing it into the sea. Apparently there was no question these three planned and carried this out, but, their barrister claimed the charge should be reduced from murder to manslaughter because the post-mortem showed the victim died of drowning. Ergo, they had actually failed in their intent to kill him by bludgeoning, and inadvertently killed him by drowning? Apparently the judge ruled whatever the acceptable legal term is for ‘bollox’ and all three were convicted of murder.

No.9
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#9
The writer of the article also questions the authority of the Magistrate to 'confiscate' the medals. He points out that it is not illegal to own medals. No doubt some lawyers will be able to correct me on this but as medals remain the property of the monarch after issue a private individual may be in lawful possession of them but cannot own them. The monarch, in this case via her representative the magistrate has demanded for them back.

Of course if Mr Mitty is wearing imatation medals I'm not sure what the position would be...
 
#10
I was under the impression that whilst serving they were the property of the crown and therefore able to be taknen away from the recipient. but that on leaving the services they became the property of the recipient. order insignia is returned after death, but not medals.
 

Andy_S

LE
Book Reviewer
#12
ARRSE UBER-WALT FINALLY CONFESSES TO CHICK-WINNING GLORY GRAB

Thank God for the above. I can now out myself. Walts of today: Read it and weep!

Some time back, I attended a garden party at a friend's house. The place was choc-a-block with attractive and VERY young chicks (as well as quite a few MILFs) and the refreshments were outstanding. I received much admiring attention for I was - gasp! - masquerading as a naval hero dripping with faux, but impressive-looking medals. The MILFs in particular were swooning over me, and one young lass asked me for a smooch behind a hedge.

I am glad to hear I will NOT be prosecuted for this glory-seeking pretense, though I do still fear being hounded to death by ARSSERs.

Oh, a small detail: I was six-years-old at the time. The bemedalled naval hero I was walting as was one Horatio Nelson, RN.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads