when are TA soldiers subject to military law?

[sticky]

when are TA soldiers subject to military law? If Ta soldiers are not being payed are they under military law? and if not does this apply if they are on MOD premises?

Any help appreciated, especially a reference In TA regs or QR's

 

[Whiskey_60]

when are TA soldiers subject to military law? If Ta soldiers are not being payed are they under military law? and if not does this apply if they are on MOD premises?

Any help appreciated, especially a reference In TA regs or QR's

Hello Sticky,

I believe we are subject to military law whenever we're in uniform and/or being paid to work by the Army.

I could be wrong though! If I am im sure some guru will correct me.

W-60

 

[theflyinghandbag]

TA Soldiers (non commissioned) are subject to military law when on duty, however if you hold a Commission then you are subject to military law 24/7.
You can access TA Regs via ArmyNet where you will be able to find the ref.

 

[theflyinghandbag]

Gosh I must be bored! Am off to watch the rugby now, this is an extraxt from TA Regs:

Military Law

3.084. The circumstances in which a member of the TA is subject to military law are set out in Section 205 of the 1955
Act. Officers in Groups A and B and NRPS officers and soldiers are subject to military law at all times. Officers in
Group C, and all soldiers other than NRPS, are subject to military law when in permanent service, in full time service,
or while undertaking any training or duty (whether in pursuance of an obligation or not).

 

[Whiskey_60]

Gosh I must be bored! Am off to watch the rugby now, this is an extraxt from TA Regs:

Military Law

3.084. The circumstances in which a member of the TA is subject to military law are set out in Section 205 of the 1955
Act. Officers in Groups A and B and NRPS officers and soldiers are subject to military law at all times. Officers in
Group C, and all soldiers other than NRPS, are subject to military law when in permanent service, in full time service,
or while undertaking any training or duty (whether in pursuance of an obligation or not).

Slow day mate?

 

[The_Snail]

msr will be along shortly and give the answers.

 

[brucewillis]

when are TA soldiers subject to military law? If Ta soldiers are not being payed are they under military law? and if not does this apply if they are on MOD premises?

Any help appreciated, especially a reference In TA regs or QR's

Why, what have you done?

 

[stacker1]

when are TA soldiers subject to military law? If Ta soldiers are not being payed are they under military law? and if not does this apply if they are on MOD premises?

Any help appreciated, especially a reference In TA regs or QR's

Why, what have you done?

Maybe he's flogged some fake torture pictures to the Daily Mirror.

 

[sticky]

when are TA soldiers subject to military law? If Ta soldiers are not being payed are they under military law? and if not does this apply if they are on MOD premises?

Any help appreciated, especially a reference In TA regs or QR's

Why, what have you done?

I'm sure details will appear in the naafi in a year or so's time, it was self defence btw the civvy bill left this case well alone, but regt are still plugging away

According to the link below as i wasn't being paid, i'm not under Mil law:
Military Law

3.084. The circumstances in which a member of the TA is subject to military law are set out in Section 205 of the 1955
Act. Officers in Groups A and B and NRPS officers and soldiers are subject to military law at all times. Officers in
Group C, and all soldiers other than NRPS, are subject to military law when in permanent service, in full time service,
or while undertaking any training or duty (whether in pursuance of an obligation or not).


Anyone know if they can still apply AGAI 67??

 

[sticky]

Cheers for the repplies fella's, just need to find out wether AGAI 67 can be applied (doubt it but want to make sure)

 

[paywog]

If what you have done means you fail "THE SERVICE TEST" you may well find yourself subject to action under AGAI 67.

PW

 

[sticky]

If what you have done means you fail "THE SERVICE TEST" you may well find yourself subject to action under AGAI 67.

PW

Any reference as if idon't fall under military law how can AGAI 67 be applicable??

 

[Bailey]

.......

 

[mark1234]

That's how I have understood it, I asked one of the old and bold how the TA would sack a civvy nurse who murdered his patients seeing as he didn't murder them on duty.

The answer I got was "failing the service test" .

But I was led to understand this only applies if it's a high profile case in the public eye, or if your compromising the effectiveness of the army (like the nob who tried to sell training docs to the ragheads ).

 

[Kitmarlowe]

Flip side. Since MoD has pretty much won the case on our Employment status as casual labour. How far would MoD be willing push AGAI67 action or the claim that we're subject to Military law at all times for Grp A members? I can see a Court case winning on this one without breaking a sweat.

 

[Sangreal]

Flip side. Since MoD has pretty much won the case on our Employment status as casual labour. How far would MoD be willing push AGAI67 action or the claim that we're subject to Military law at all times for Grp A members? I can see a Court case winning on this one without breaking a sweat.

I can't.

 

[Kitmarlowe]

Flip side. Since MoD has pretty much won the case on our Employment status as casual labour. How far would MoD be willing push AGAI67 action or the claim that we're subject to Military law at all times for Grp A members? I can see a Court case winning on this one without breaking a sweat.

I can't.

The argument could run. As MoD regards all members of the TA as casual labour, with no attendant employment rights as would be granted to Part time staff, then the lack of employment rights cuts both ways, MoD can not be in a position of demanding that TA members obey rules and regulations when not paid by MoD. It's close to a company demanding that you wear a shirt and tie every day of every week, at home, on holiday, or off sick because you have to wear a shirt and tie whilst working. Given the current legal climate I suspect MoD would not want to run a case past a judge passed on TA Regulations, even through those regulations are supported by law.

 

[GuybrushThreepwood]

Bloody hell Sticky, is this still ongoing?

 

[sticky]

Bloody hell Sticky, is this still ongoing?

Yep even though i was told it was dealt with, and also i've not been formally told anything!
I take it you know some of the details as do probably most of the regiment

 

[Sangreal]

Flip side. Since MoD has pretty much won the case on our Employment status as casual labour. How far would MoD be willing push AGAI67 action or the claim that we're subject to Military law at all times for Grp A members? I can see a Court case winning on this one without breaking a sweat.

I can't.

The argument could run. As MoD regards all members of the TA as casual labour, with no attendant employment rights as would be granted to Part time staff, then the lack of employment rights cuts both ways, MoD can not be in a position of demanding that TA members obey rules and regulations when not paid by MoD. It's close to a company demanding that you wear a shirt and tie every day of every week, at home, on holiday, or off sick because you have to wear a shirt and tie whilst working. Given the current legal climate I suspect MoD would not want to run a case past a judge passed on TA Regulations, even through those regulations are supported by law.

This would probably be true were it not for the fact that, when enlisting, a TA officer or soldier agrees to be bound by these rules either when on duty (soldiers) or at all times (officers). In simple terms it is therefore a 'contract' and is similar to that which binds UKBCs and dependants to some elements of Mil Law when stationed overseas.

AGAI 67 is even easier to apply as it is divorced from Mil Law and instead is based on the balance of probability of someone having failed the Service Test making particularly useful in dealing with TA soldiers who have been ill-disciplined away from the TA.