Armed Forces Act 2006

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by Always_a_Civvy, Nov 15, 2006.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. interesting.Never knew you could get trooped for not escaping!
  2. Are you completely deranged? 343 pages? No wonder politicians always seem so sonambulant!

  3. 1 page was enough , nice word that Rosie "sonambulant" ,
  4. The only bit I understood was on the last page! :twisted:

  5. 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

  6. Spare a thought for those who have to explain it to them in plain English Rosie... :lol: ...not that they necessarily listen... :roll:
  7. no always, did that before and the thread was hijacked by Hig and his biggiedicasaurus and SgtPB and his truely vile words that made me throw up.
  8. OK little miss, once more for us oldens. What the hell is a sonambulant?
  9. some one who sleep walks ...
  10. Just to deflate rosinacarley's smart-arse bubble, it's actually 'somnambulant'. :p
  11. Still a good word though , :wink:
  12. essiential bed-time reading for all service personell.......I don't think
  13. 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.

  14. And as Nutty knows the sensible OOD finds better ways of 'solving' the problem.

  15. 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.
  16. chieftiff

    chieftiff War Hero Moderator

    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.
  17. CT

    I would suggest that your Boss has given every lad a perfect excuse for being adrift.
  18. 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.
  19. Perhaps we should name a boat after it?

    HMS/m Somnambulant... that'd scare CND supporters!

Share This Page