Chiefs Rape conviction quashed

agrippa

Badgeman
This guy is a CPOMA (albeit acting) and there are no jobs in the MA branch (that I'm aware of) that don't require a CRB check prior to drafting. How is a Medic with a history like this going to be able to do fresh cases again? Or duty medic? When some P1ssed up person who can't look after themselves gets wheeled into the sickbay at 3 AM for a fit for cells check he will always be looking over his shoulder and not 100% mind on the job.
The MA branch is tiny nowadays and pretty much everyone knows everyone else, Also he will probably have to retrain to go outside as what medical job is he going to get? CRB's are required in civvy street too. If the guy is innocent then double page spread in the sun, oh hold on he can't something to do with Faye turney and that lot selling their stories! So he can't even put his side of the story across! Let the jungle drums start then!!
 

Karma

War Hero
Nutty said:
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.

Indeed.
 
lsadirty said:
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.

What REPUTATION, here is a recently married Senior Rate, allegedly a responsible person, screwing a drunken jenny on board one of Her Majesties War Canoes. I do not think he has any reputation left.

As for members who feel the Jenny is as responsible as the A/CPO, she is the one that brought the matter be a it a criminal offence (now quashed) or Naval Discipline Offences, to the notice of Command. So we shoot the messenger and give a message to any whistle blower if we can't make it stick you will be offered up as a sacrificial lamb. That is the reason many woman fail to report cases of sexual assault, some believe over 50% never come to notice.

Nutty
 

silverfox

War Hero
Moderator
Book Reviewer
Unfortunately, whether the act was consensual or not, the man in questioned demonstrated such a dramatic judgement that there is no way I would have him in my ship, and if he held on to even his PO's rate I would be very surprised.

There is just nothing in any of the actions that he did that justify anyone having any faith in his judgement and ability to perform as a CPO.
 

plymwebed

Badgeman
In the original case, the court heard the woman made four statements after the incident. The first, in which she claimed to have been raped, she later disavowed. In the next two statements she could recall few details of the incident. The fourth statement was made after controversial memory retrieval therapy and had full details of the woman's version of events.
The prosecution said conviction should be made on the strength of this fourth statement. In fact the panel ruled based on the strength of the first statement - even though the woman herself had disavowed it.
This is why the conviction was quashed.
Yes he can rejoin the Navy, and yes he could be retried.
The woman's identity could possibly be revealed if she herself were prosecuted for other offences.
The story gets the front page of The Herald today, so equal if not better coverage than the original conviction.
Read the report at thisisplymouth
 
plymwebed said:
In the original case, the court heard the woman made four statements after the incident. The first, in which she claimed to have been raped, she later disavowed. In the next two statements she could recall few details of the incident. The fourth statement was made after controversial memory retrieval therapy and had full details of the woman's version of events.
The prosecution said conviction should be made on the strength of this fourth statement. In fact the panel ruled based on the strength of the first statement - even though the woman herself had disavowed it.
This is why the conviction was quashed.
Yes he can rejoin the Navy, and yes he could be retried.
The woman's identity could possibly be revealed if she herself were prosecuted for other offences.
The story gets the front page of The Herald today, so equal if not better coverage than the original conviction.
Read the report at thisisplymouth

To be fair to the lady, a statement of withdrawal rather than disavowed (Cambridge Dictionary to say that you know nothing about something, or that you have no responsibility for or connection with something: Maybe poetic licence by the Jouno). I have taken many withdrawal statements in my Plod days. Normally when family, friends, Social workers, a touch of the seconds, threats from the accused or his friends and family get to the victim who withdraws her complaint, far more often in cases of assault, be they sexual or not, than any other type of crime. So not to much weight should be placed on that statement of withdrawal. This lady obviously for one reason or another withdrew her complaint then was convinced to reinstate her allegation. The Jury or in this case Court Martial then found on the evidence they were given that he was guilty. Three judges decided different.

You do wonder why we have a jury system where it is notoriously hard in this day and age to gain a conviction only to have three judges overturn the Juries decision because they think they know better. If you have or had sat on a jury, maybe spent 12 hours going thru the evidence a discussing the verdict then find the person Guilty only for a judge to say you got it wrong would you be happy with that.

Nutty
 

snowler

Midshipman
exile1 said:
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.,

He must be shitting a brick at the prospect of that...........................
 

agrippa

Badgeman
snowler said:
exile1 said:
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.,

He must be shitting a brick at the prospect of that...........................

So funny!! Loving the sarcasim Snowler, laughed till the water came!!
 
Memory Retrieval Therapy, did I imagine it, or did I really shag a French Bird? Whatever happens his name is shit, thats why i honestly belive, that, in such cases no-one should be named until the verdict, and then the guilty, regardless of the accused, Women have been known to tell a fib or two in the past, and us gullible souls believe them.

fart.gif
 

Latest Threads

New Posts

Top