Armed Forces Act 2006

#5
The only bit I understood was on the last page! :twisted:

Printed in the UK by The Stationery Office Limited
under the authority and superintendence of Carol Tullo, Controller of
Her Majesty’s Stationery Office and Queen’s Printer of Acts of Parliament
 
#6
OK,

How many of us have contravened Section 20 para (1) sub-para (b)?

20 Unfitness or misconduct through alcohol or drugs

(1) A person subject to service law commits an offence if, due to the influence of alcohol or any drug—

(a) he is unfit to be entrusted with his duty or any duty which he might
reasonably expect to be called upon to perform; or
(b) his behaviour is disorderly or likely to bring discredit to Her Majesty’s
forces.


:oops:
 
#7
rosinacarley said:
Are you completely deranged? 343 pages? No wonder politicians always seem so sonambulant!
Spare a thought for those who have to explain it to them in plain English Rosie... :lol: ...not that they necessarily listen... :roll:
 
#14
TattooDog said:
OK,

How many of us have contravened Section 20 para (1) sub-para (b)?

20 Unfitness or misconduct through alcohol or drugs

(1) A person subject to service law commits an offence if, due to the influence of alcohol or any drug—

(a) he is unfit to be entrusted with his duty or any duty which he might
reasonably expect to be called upon to perform; or
(b) his behaviour is disorderly or likely to bring discredit to Her Majesty’s
forces.


:oops:
T-D

None of us. The defence is in the writing. The Joss has to prove in

(a) "which he might reasonably expect"

What is reasonable????????? a very huge get out

(b) "disorderly or likely to bring discredit"

What is disorderly of discreditable????????????????

It is up to Pusser to prove these points not for you to offer explantion until they have done that. The argument lays in the interpretation of the words.

The thing about the services is that most plead Guilty when faced with a person who says Not Guilty most prosecutions quickly run into trouble due a lack of preparation of the evidence.

Nutty
 
#16
Nutty said:
It is up to Pusser to prove these points not for you to offer explantion until they have done that. The argument lays in the interpretation of the words.
Good point Nutty - I suppose most people don't consider that when they are first trooped.

Your average junior may well be so overwhelmed that they will just plead guilty anyway.
 

chieftiff

War Hero
Moderator
#17
All weasel words and obviously written by lawyers to muddy the waters, the problem here is that the more complicated the charge the more difficult it is to prove.

A recent case I was involved in...........Lad late(not the first time by a long shot) his PO wants him charged so gets charged with absent from place of duty. I am his DO, consider case closed lad is in the c*ap and brief him so. On table after charges read and statements considered I hear case dismissed!!!! Talking to Boss afterwards he tells me he had no choice, the actual charge reads " Absent from place of duty without reasonable excuse". The lad claimed his car broke down and there is no proof otherwise, the fact he was 9 hours late, didn't bother phoning anyone and is a complete tosser is apparently irrelevant.

Now I am sure when I was a lad (and got done for being adrift) it went like this on the table: Guilty! because you were 1 hour late, now let's listen to the reason why (mitigation) and decide on the severity of the punishment.
 
#19
chieftiff said:
Now I am sure when I was a lad (and got done for being adrift) it went like this on the table: Guilty! because you were 1 hour late, now let's listen to the reason why (mitigation) and decide on the severity of the punishment.
I suspect one of the problems is that in all summary cases, the defendant has automatic right of appeal and many will exercise that option rather than take a few days of puns. An appeal board presided over by a civilian Judge Advocate may have a different view of reasonable excuse.

It may also be that COs, MAAs etc are increasingly aware of human rights issues and don't want to get in the cack themselves.

Lets face it, if he/she was innocent they wouldn't be at table in the first place would they? :wink:

Edit: - This is no criticism of COs or Reg Branch (or Service Police) - just an appreciation of the pressures they are now under.
 

Similar threads

Top