Chiefs Rape conviction quashed

Sailor's rape conviction quashed

Coates shielded his face when he entered an earlier court martial
A navy chief petty officer found guilty of raping a female colleague on a warship has had his conviction quashed by the Court of Appeal.
Phillip Coates, from Devon, was jailed for five years in March after being found guilty of raping the woman at a barbecue on board a warship at sea.

The 30-year-old had also been dismissed from the service by the court martial panel at Portsmouth's HMS Nelson.

But three judges in London ruled that his conviction was unsafe.

Kissing admitted

It was believed Coates was the first sailor to be convicted for the alleged rape of a female colleague since women were allowed to go to sea with the Navy.

He was not present in court to hear Friday's ruling by Sir Igor Judge, Mr Justice Goldring and Mr Justice Beatson.

Coates, a married medical assistant, was also demoted and deprived of good conduct badges following the initial three-week trial.

The court martial had been told that the woman admitted kissing Coates prior to the alleged incident in the Mediterranean between 8 and 9 March last year.

But she insisted she had not consented to sex.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/6230880.stm


Does he get his job back?

 

So what happens to his accuser now?

 

If his conviction is now quashed as unsafe, does this mean he is to be reinstated at full rate/pay/ship ?

 

I smell compensation, big time. And good luck to him, what a terrible ordeal. As for reinstatement? I'd tell em to get the old gregory peck book out.

 

It would seem that apart from anything else this case highlights some of the failings of the court martial system.
Had this been trial by Jury it is highly unlikely that he would have been found guilty.

 

The quashing of the rape conviction has got much less of a story than the original conviction, so this man's life has been ruined by what is potentially a lie, brought out through a controversial psychotherapy technique.

 

I have always felt apart from Co's defaulters that "serious crimes" be handed over to the civil courts, I am sure that to maintain discipline they can still fine the feck outta ya and confine you to barracks/Ship. But where there should be no room for error (not implying that the civilian court system is perfect, but there are more resources available) a person should be able to retain the services, if he/she can afford it of the best lawyers available...

Not sure if your system has changed, but prior to 1982 over here, you were considered "guilty" before innocent, and you had to prove your innocence, but the new charter of rights introduced, seriously buggered up the MP's, instead of just hauling you off to the cells at 4 am they had to suck back and redo their SOP's, quite a few drug cases got thrown out back then because the Military Police fucked up... :hockey:

 

This shows the problem of a rape case - it often boils down to word vs word.

 

but not impossible.... seems like CPO Coates is not the only victim of an unsafe conviction....

for example - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/6753317.stm

 

Well this confirms what I said originally. I'm glad his conviction has been found unsafe. He should be reinstated to the position he was before conviction, in all respects, and awarded substantial damages against the Navy. If he simply offered compensation but is denied returning to his old position it will simply suggest in many people's minds that the RN consider him guilty regardless of the CA's verdict, in which case you could regard this as the beginning of the end for the CM system in the long run.

The problem with all judges and the criminal justice process is its claims to objectivity against the facts of its subjectivity, as Rant in R v Brown so evidently demonstrated (to the extent that it is used as the classic example of subjectivity in adjudication). Coates would have been served better by a critical examination of all the facts and the scientific credibility of de novo medical intervention.

 

Would he want to return though? I don't think I would.

 

Not with standing the conviction for Rape being found to be unsafe. The prosecution can of course request a re-trial but with out further and stronger evidence that seems unlikely.

Surely the matters of excessive drinking whilst on duty on a warship at sea, sexual intercourse with a female in the same location, actions predudicial to the good order of naval discipline, bringing the Royal Navy into disrepute etc. can come into play. Will he survive that and remain either employed or retain the rank of Acting Chief Petty Officer.

Perhaps you serving senior rates would know more about the modern Naval attitudes????


Nutty

 

Nail well and truly struck on head - and exactly the sort of questions that I would like to see answered - particularly by the Command team.

 

If the above quote from Nutty stands then surely the other party [the female] in the case should be lined up aswell.
It always seems that the male is the guilty party in 'rape cases' however the old chinese saying comes to mind

Woman with skirt up can run faster than man with trousers down
:nemo: :nemo:

 

this is another disgrace to hit the media. i cannot believe this blokes life has been ruined by a word of mouth ruling. i would need to know more as to why his verdict has been quashed, was it more evidence or a unsafe verdict

 

served with a good Master At Arms, after a London visit, he was charged with rape. He ended up as not guilty - turned out it was the daughter alleging rape after he'd also [email protected] her mother. Until it is proven in court of law, anonymity for both partys should be the rule.
Saves a career bein g ruined by association.

 

On the local news in Guzz tonite, they said he could be retried: don't they think they've harmed the bloke enough ? His reputation is in tatters, his name is mud, and they haven't finished with him yet ? I reckon he should be reinstated with all rights, pay and privileges, and the Judge Advocate General should personally apologise profusely as he hands over the large compensation cheque.

 

Oh come on it was not the JAG who decided to prosecute, that would have been the NPA and whilst I accept the JAG would have directed the Court, it was the Court that found him guilty.

 

As my old man always said… 'Wheel the guilty bastard in Master at Arms and we'll give him a fair trial'

Seems to have been the case here too. I always thought the accusers claims were BS, rape on a small ship and nobody heard or saw a thing… yeah right!

 

He's been named and shamed, why isn't she?