Chiefs Rape conviction quashed

silverfox

War Hero
Moderator
Book Reviewer
Nutty said:
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.
 
silverfox said:
Nutty said:
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:
 

jungle_jim

Lantern Swinger
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.
 

lsadirty

War Hero
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.
 

Oil_Slick

War Hero
slim said:
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.


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!
 

exile1

Lantern Swinger
Unsafe conviction.......fair enough but I though shagging on ship was a no-no and THEY should be disciplined for that........conduct prejudicial to....etc.,
 

OSLO

War Hero
Guys, the facts that we know are that an allegation was made, but there was not enough evidence to convict. That doesn't mean that nothing happened, it doesn't mean that anything did. Just because the conviction was quashed does not mean that it did not happen, merely that there is insufficient evidence to convict, something that is a feature of rape cases. Notwithstanding the other facts of the case (drunk at sea, sex at sea...), something happened that shouldn't. I wholeheartedly agree that neither party should have been named, but there was an original conviction. Yes the CPO's name has been sullied, so what? What alternative is there? Retain anonimity for all convicts?
 

janner

MIA
Book Reviewer
I believe, that with some exceptions, no one should be named until found guilty. If a false accusation is made, in a rape case, the female should be named

I also think that Solicitors should be shot, but thats just my liberal side coming out :toothy1: :toothy2:
 

Latest Threads

New Posts

Top