| Sounding Board |  | |||
| Choose other pages | ||||
 |
|
|
| Question/Comment |
| 1 May: The question Anthony asks about where the legal authority is derived from for sending in military advisers to help Syrian rebels is one he will never get an honest answer to. All sorts of pious excuses will be given by states found to have agents working there but they will all be short of lawfulness. Scipio top of page |
| 29 April: There is an interesting piece by Alasdair Palmer in today's Telegraph which reinforces the point I made in my comment of 14th April when I discussed what I called the perennial dilemma. If you don't give a bad man a way out he will fight on, probably with more determination and the concommitant suffering and loss of life. After all, his fate is a foregone conclusion so what has he to lose?
Another interesting point, again from this week's news papers, is that of the role of governments supporting rebels fighters and the analogy of the fate of Charles Taylor. The author looks to the sending of arms to Syrian rebels. If the law is not applied universally, what credibility does it have? There are quite possibly many "military advisers" on the ground in Syria, assisting the rebels. All in violation of international law, the UN Charter and the sovereignty of the Syrian government who are the only agency to authorise ingress to their country (absent a UNSCR under Ch VII). If any government admits to sending "advisers" they should be asked from where they derive the legal authority to do so. Anthony  top of page |
| 27 April: I admit that we need to know more about the background, but the comments of the Court of Appeal and the trial judge seem to say all that needs to be said about the merits of the case. Even if there was a realistic prospect of conviction it is difficult to see how it was in the public interest to prosecute the case. I couldn't see the CPS prosecuting in similar circuamstances. Tess top of page |
| Take a look at the Trooper Williams case. The CPS prosecuted that case. According to the Telegraph the judge, Mrs Justice Hallett, suggested that the decision to prosecute him had been a "betrayal" of British troops. Aspals top of page |
| 27 April: I happen to agree with the other comments about the court martial case. More important, it shows that the prosecution decision making process needs reform. Only having a truly independent prosecutor will give the public confidence that decisions to prosecute soldiers are taken without the army looking over the case lawyer's shoulder. Tess top of page |
| It is questionable that the army would have supported the decision to prosecute, which rather underlines the independence of the Service prosecutors does it not? The Daily Mail report indicates that the case had been to the Court of Appeal, presumably on a prosecution appeal against a terminating ruling. The report refers to "Last year three judges, asked to review the evidence at the Court Martial Appeal Court in London, branded the case 'unfortunate' saying it was a 'large hammer (to deal) with a relatively minor matter'." Interestingly, it does not mention that the Court of Appeal dismissed the prosecutor's appeal. Further, the case was prosecuted by civilian counsel who would have independently advised. So, as I mentioned, before an informed view can be taken one really needs to hear more about the evidence that supported the decision to prosecute and the progress of the case. As you know, because of the increased pressure it places upon the court's time, prosecutors do not appeal terminating rulings without good reason. Aspals top of page |
| 26 April: Good to see a sensible decision from the courts over the corporal who defended himself against the Taliban. What a waste of time that case was. Baz top of page |
| 26 April: brillian decision by the judge advocate. even the victim didnt want the case to go ahead. pete top of page |
| I think we need to hear a little more about the circumstances before rushing to judgment on this decision to prosecute. From my experience, having seen in the past how certain parts of the press report cases about servicemen put on trial for prisoner abuse, I would treat their views with some caution. Even when subsequent events prove them wrong, newspapers seldom apologise for running an inaccurate and sensationalist story. Aspals top of page |
| 23 April: A comment on Aspals and Tess point. Countries cannot stand by idly watching while the Libyans lynch Saif Gaddafi. Without outside help the rebels would have been defeated. Thankfully they were not. Now the same countries that helped create the new Libya have to put pressure on the government there to hand him over to the ICC.
Briony top of page |
| 23 April: the un cocked up libya so now they need to cover up the mistakes. letting the libyans kill gaddafi does us all a favour. no embarassin revelations pete top of page |
| 22 April: The ICC agreement to the death penalty for Gaddafi is disgusting. It goes against the grain of the UN moratorium on the death penalty. On 15 November 2007, the Third Committee of the United Nations 62nd General Assembly voted 99 to 52, with 33 abstentions, in favour of a resolution calling for a global moratorium on capital punishment. This has been supported in subsequently votes and a further vote is due this year.
I would point out that the ICC took a different view in the case of Kenya a country with an established government and judiciary, and decided against the Kenyan Government challenge to the admissibility of two cases, seeking to invoke the ICC principle of complementarity. The Kenyan Government failed to take proper action against individuals so the ICC stepped in. Briony top of page |
| 22 April: If the ICC does allow Saif Gaddafi to be tried in Libya, where there is the possibility of the death penalty, something the High Commissioner for Human Rights is opposed to will be imposed on him. In 1989 the international community adopted the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aimed at abolishing the death penalty and clearly recognising the need to eliminate the use of capital punishment throughout the world. But before we get to the sentence, there must be a real concern that the defendant will not get a fair trial. There is evidence he has been tortured in captivity, that the government does not exercise sufficient control over territory outside the capital and that the power of local militias is significant and may hamper investigation. This means the complementarity principle can't be fully implemented and that the ICC should prosecute Saif Gaddafi to ensure he gets a fair trial. If they don't do this then the ICC is in serious danger of losing credibility. Tess top of page |
| I am in total agreement with you, Tess. The ICC is supposed to be the court of last resort, allowing national courts to try their own nationals for international crimes."The reason this principle came into existence was the fear on the part of many prospective States party that the ICC would become a supra-national criminal court and would result in countries losing domestic control of criminal prosecutions." (Compare the situation with the European Human Rights Court). In August 2011. The ICC Review Conference adopted resolution RC/1, "Complementarity", recognising national responsibilities to investigate and prosecute the most serious crimes of international concern. But this only works in countries that have a joined up and effective legal system. The Libyan government hasn't even been able to secure the release of Saif Gaddafi into their own custody from the custody of rebels holding him. Indeed, Libya has the appearance of a state in name only. The fate of Gaddafi junior does, as Thinners says, seem to be a foregone conclusion. Aspals top of page |
| 22 April: Just to check you are taking the p*** arent you Thinners.
Great to see that we are consistent in our treatment of dictaorships and human rights abusers by cosying up to the Bahrain goverment even while they are mistreating there protesters. Seems like humanitarian intervention only goes for those dictators you dont like. Pongo top of page |
| 20 April: Nato did a great job in Libya and one we can feel proud of for taking a leading part in, by removing a brutal but stable dictatorship and replacing it with a brutal but unstable "democracy" with deep tribal divisions and a probable breakup of the country into separate autonomous regions. It is a real success story. The ICC response shows that the Libyan government, if you can call it that, really has no control over the mobsters holding Gaddafi who don't want to hand him over and want to put him on trial and kill him. All in the name of democracy. Whatever the evidence against him the fact that the case will be heard in Libya means the result is a forgone conclusion. Thinners top of page |
| 19 April: The ICC retreat from its earlier stance is regrettable and, even more so, its purported acceptance of the death penalty for Saif Gaddafi, if found guilty. This has all the signs of turning into a show trial, given a veneer of respectability by the ICC. Personally, I think it is hugely damaging. Why? Because Libya does not have an effective government nor an effective legal system. The government rules Tripoli. Erstwhile rebel forces (including those holding Saif) are not towing their line. So, the applicability of the rule of law, and to what extent, is questionable. More than 6 months after the ghastly murders of Colonel Gaddafi and his son Muatassim, there is still no news of an investigation or prosecution to bring the perpetrators to justice. It does not instil much confidence that the Libyan government has the authority, the will, or the capability to do so. So what confidence is there that Saif Gaddafi will receive a fair trial? The government did not ensure he was not abused in detention. Indeed, torture is as commonplace now as it was during the Gaddafi years. If the UN is to be seen as being consistent, it must re-state its concern about human rights abuses and demand the handing over of Saif to the Hague. Amnesty today is reported as expressing concerns over the torture of a Tawerghan man. "Amnesty has documented more than a dozen deaths in custody at the hands of armed militias since last September, amid widespread torture of suspected al-Gaddafi loyalists and soldiers." (added 20 Apr).
Anthony top of page |
| 18 April: Anthony mentioned the ICC and it wanting to try Saif Gaddafi. It has backed away from that position and is apparently in agreement with the Libyans that they can try him under ICC supervision and even the existence of the death penalty on conviction is not something they have a problem with. So another show trial like Saddam Hussein and Saif, whatever his crimes, will join his dad and brother. Great thing international justice. Scratch that. Politics. Thinners top of page |
| 15 April: I share Briony's concerns about proper investigation by military police. The Court of Appeal made it quite clear that there was the appearance of bias and that undermined public confidence and made it look as if they were investigating themselves. Tess top of page |
| 15 April: Aw cmon Anthony. Since when has the press been independent? I thought it was understood that these days bbc stood for Biased Broadcasting Company. Does anyone really take the reports at face value. I don't. I'm pretty sure a lot of people feel the same way and don't trust any of them. In all my years of service I dont recall many stories that faithfully followed to real events. There were one or two exceptions but most just wanted a good story. I do happen to agree about the Turks. It's pretty daft to make threats to involve the whole of NATO just for the sake of a cross border shoot out between rival Syrian groups that doesn't involve the Turks. If Anthony is right about the motive to get round the UN, and it does look plausible, the yanks want to rein in the Turks pretty sharpish. Pongo top of page |
| 14 April: Last November and August, when discussing the crisis in Syria, I voiced serious concerns about attempts to subvert the legal mechanisms of the UN Security Council through the subterfuge of the NATO Treaty, with the US using Turkey as its proxy, and that Turkey was also using the Treaty as a means of asserting its regional influence. These would be very dangerous moves, especially at a time when the fledgling peace agreement brokered by Mr Anan is barely days old. The latest Turkish rhetoric is de-stabilising and dangerous. Whether the US is party to the present threat is yet to be seen. The press also plays its part in fanning the flames because, as I read events, there is no desire to look below the surface of some accounts received from rebel groups. For example, a story unfolds that shots are fired into a refugee camp and people are killed. There does not appear to be any inquiry into why those shots were fired - was it to return fire from armed groups in the camp or was it unprovoked? Similarly, reports of shelling never explore the reasons why, yet the same TV report will show armed rebels on the street firing their weapons. Who at, I wonder. I am not justifying disproportionate force, but merely pointing out that sometimes the headline is governed by the particular political leanings of the media. Is that what balanced journalism is about these days? It is dangerous stuff, because it is propaganda that influences those who watch it or read it. In the present climate, no one would perhaps be interested in the stories of Syrian soldiers wounded or killed by rebels. Their story is not newsworthy nor does it fit with the government's stance.
The criticisms of dictatorial regimes in the Middle East and Africa are very selectively employed by governments, ours included. We were quite content one minute to cosy up to Gaddafi (as we do with other ruthless regimes in Africa and the Middle East), bring him in from the cold, with apparent knowledge of rendition flights to his country for the purpose of torture (which, of course, we oppose and criticised Gaddafi for), and take the moral high ground the next. NATO did not stop the torture or genocide that Gaddafi's regime was accused of (see what has happened to the Tawerghans by "liberated" Libyans) and, if anything, has made tribal divisions even greater. At the same time, the new Libya ignores the will of the ICC and those holding Saif Gaddafi, who are seemingly autonomous from the government in Tripoli (another NATO legacy), mistreat him and refuse to hand him over to the Court. Moreover, the government has failed to investigate the summary and brutal killings of Saif's father and brother, both serious criminal acts. If there is any lesson at all to be learned from NATO's so-called victory in Libya, seeing the legacy of chaos and torture that has resulted from it, it is that we should not meddle in other people's internal affairs. As I have also said, the other grave consequence of NATO's excesses has been the body blow (possibly knock-out punch) to R2P. In a sense, this may have done us all a favour by preventing any further folly in Syria. The final thing I would say is that threatening to take dictatorial leaders to the ICC to face crimes against humanity may not be the best way to bring about an early peace or transition of power. It is why we still have people like Robert Mugabe in power, in Zimbabwe, and I suspect why Assad will not go quietly. Which means more people may die. I have called it a perennial dilemma: do we let a bad man go free, to save more lives, or insist upon removing him by force and see the fighting and dying continue, or even escalate? One can understand why victims would want the UN to choose the first option but is it, pragmatically, the best in the long run? Of course, the ICC needs to play its part in this too. The problem is that to forebear from prosecution in such circumstances would be a contradiction of its raison d'être and open it to criticism that it was superfluous, which it is not. But rigidly prosecuting every dictator is not desirable either. It could make the situation much worse by prolonging the fighting - as we saw with Gaddafi. Anthony [updated, 19.00hrs] top of page |
| 13 April: Briony military police investigations are not independent and arent compliant. That's according to the appeal court. The IHAT got rid of them. Thinners top of page |
| Thinners, thank you for reminding us of this. I found an article in the Independent for 26th March, which I am now adding to the News page for that month. The Court of Appeal said the investigations by IHAT were not article 3 compliant (the IHAT was looking into allegations of torture and ill treatment). The RMP were substituted in the investigation by the RN police. This serves to remind us of the Findlay argument of appearances and public confidence in what is being done. The court's concern was on the "public perception" of the possibility of bias. RMP should be separate from the chain of command. Aspals top of page |
| 12 April: This is a reply to Pegasus's comment. I mean that if the investigation complies with the requirements of article 2 then the trial should be heard in open court. If the investigation is not art 2 compliant then it should not even get to court. The concern is that there are far too many serious cases being dealt with by commanders. If it is true who is giving them this authority? I thought the new forces act was supposed to stop serious cases being dealt with by commanders. Briony top of page |
| 5 April: Does Briony mean that an investigation is not compliant if the subsequent case is heard in camera? Surely not. Pegasus top of page |
| 2 April: Tess articulates my exact concerns.If the investigaitons were article 2 compliant then why the secrecy? Briony top of page |
| 31 March: In reply to Aspals. Secrecy is what makes the whole thing so suspicious. Why did the Guardian have to invoke the FOI Act to obtain information? There should be explanations freely available when Cos punish soldiers when at war. I am not meaning the run of the mill cases. If thees are cases that are referred back to the CO by the prosecutors it should be relatively easy to identify them. If there are security concerns then just don't publish the names. Tess top of page |
| 30 March: I agree with Tess that it is quite shocking serious cases are hidden from public view. It does shake one's confidence in the whole system. If the rights act applies to the army then why aren't there article 2 investigations into killings? Briony top of page |
| But who says there aren't any article 2 compliant investigations? In serious cases, there is a legal requirement under the AFA 2006 to investigate and for referral to the independent Service Prosecuting Authority for a decision on whether to prosecute. That decision is taken after applying the Service Prosecutor's test. The option for a CO to deal summarily is much more restricted than before the 2006 Act. It may well be the case that charges have been referred to him for summary hearing by the SPA. Aspals top of page |
| 30 March: aspals a federal solution to libya will lead to partition. they need strong leadership. on the afghan court martial comments by tess the military cant go round publishing soldiers names cos of security. the report does say they have been punished by the cos. pete top of page |
| 30 March: The shocking news of 126 incidents involving British forces with Afghan victims is bad enough but the even more disturbing thing about it is the secrecy of it all. Who has heard of the court martial referred to in the Guardian article. Why have most of these cases been dealt with by commanding officers. There is a lack of consistency. Aspals reports an officer and sergeant prosecuted for assaulting a detainee, yet the Guardian reveals another case where the CO dealt with a similar though more severe offence where a soldier beat his prisoner unconscious for not answering questions. Other cases are of shootings and deaths resulting are dealt with in-house by officers.
Has anyone in the army heard of article 2 of the ECHR or do they think they are above the law. PIL need to get involved on behalf of the families of victims and find out the truth. I am appalled the military system can survive and still expect to be looked on as credible. Its secretiveness is comparable to the SIAC but at least SIAC proceedings get reported. Tess top of page |
| Thank you for these links, Tess. They have also been tweeted. Aspals top of page |
| 30 March: You might be interested in the story about Nato allegedly ignoring the refusgees fleeing Libya. Now the Spanish are saying Nato has to prove that they passed on a distress call to a Spanish ship. The Spanish deny it. It will be interesting to see if Nato is lying about it. If it is, it throws a shadow over its credibility in the bombing and its denial of bias and part in the war as the rebel air force. Will [Link added, Ed] top of page |
| 29 March: Reply to Pete's comment. Cammoron never cared about Libya after the bombing. He just wanted his moment of glory which was easy as Liby is a tiny country and didn't have much of an army, airforce or navy. Mind you, it still took them 6 months of intense bombing and special forces ops to get rid of the madman. Having said that, I take my hat off to him for keeping the nutters we now see killing each other all under control. May be he wasn't so mad after all. Thinners top of page |
| 28 March: in libya the killing goes on. we swapped one tyrant for several uncontrolled ones under a token government that even the west is failing to prop up. pete top of page |
| I have just (at 18.00hrs) posted an article to the Newspage, from the Guardian Comment Section. In view of the lack of control over militias and to ensure that Tripoli remains weak, it proposes a federal solution. Aspals top of page |
| 28 March: Today's news is that there is a chance for peace in Syria. I would only say that if there have been failures in the past then we have to learn from them, but past failures shouldn't stop us from doing what is right. Briony top of page |
| 26 March: No government seems to learn the lessons of what comes next. Look at the mess we left in Iraq and Libya which was hailed as a great success. The truth is there isn't the stomach for a major war with Syria, thank God. But I agree with Thinners that we shouldn't be expected to pitch in every time rebels take issue with their governments. After all, the Geneva conventions do allow governments to defend themselves against usurpers. Scipio top of page |
| 26 March: well said thinners pete top of page |
| 25 March: we didnt stand up for the jews did we. we watched them being chased out of germany to evry corner of the earth. pete top of page |
| 25 March: To come back on Briony's post. The situation with Nazi Germany was different. While the Jews were persecuted in the 30s, it was not until the early 40s that the genocidal killings took place when the war had been underway for 3 years. I do not support genocide, if that needs to be said. Nor do I support people poking there noses in everytime some bunch of radicals decides to challenge the government, takes up arms and then starts screaming for help when it takes a predictable beating. As a kid I was taught not to start something you couldn't finish. Thinners top of page |
| 25 March: Briony does make a good point. Unfortunately, the only legal way we can intervene in Syria is if it is authorised by the UN security council. We know that isn't going to happen because both Russia and China have vetoed two attempts to pass a resolution there. But it is a brake on the hawkish nations who want to leap in feet first without understanding the complexities on the ground and more importantly what comes next when the fighting is done. Pegasus top of page |
| 24 March: Thinners asks who we help. We help the people who are suffering in the fighting by bringing in aid and medical help. I don't see why we should worry about anyone agreeing to let us do that. I think that we should side with the rebels against despotic regimes that oppress their people. To take Thinner's point we would not have sttod up to Nazi persecution of the Jews in the second world war. Briony top of page |
| 24 March: I tend to agree with Briony that there is a lot happening in Syria, but I understand the points about reasons why it is difficult to interfere.
I do not however agree with the views on the military system. A criminal case is a criminal case, and wherever it is prosecuted the law is the same with the same burden and standard of proof. So a CPS prosecutor could do that without difficulty. The military offences tend to be rather minor stuff and, as would be a lost less difficult than prosecuting ASBOs and RTA offences in the Mags. The law is not that complicated. After all, if someone goes awol it doesn't sound like it takes a lot to prove the offence. Tess top of page |
| 23 March: Replying to Briony, who do we help? Who are the rebels? Which faction? Crimes have been committed on both sides, with torture of soldiers by rebels. Why should we support every disaffected bunch that decides it wants to overthrow its government? We really made little difference in Libya just swapping one set of bullies for several others headed by a token government. Can we say we're surprised when ruthless governments crack down and preserve the status quo. Would our government roll over and make way for a bunch of disatisfied "rebels"? You bet they wouldn't they would use force to preserve order, whether the sent in armed police or the army. These so called rebels in Syria pick a fight then expect others to pitch in and fight it for them. We've had enough of meddling in other peoples affairs. Thinners top of page |
| 23 March: There is nothing going on in Syria? How about crimes against humanity for starters? It is an absolute disgrace that we are not doing mor eto help those people. Briony top of page |
| 23 March: Nothing is happening in Syria Tess that involves us so I suppose that is why no one is talking about it. Just to comment on your view of the prosecutors, I hope we hang on to them. Far better to have a prosecutor in uniform who knows a bit about service life than one who hasn't got a clue. Any way, would the civvies really want to do the job? Pegasus top of page |
| 21 March: I'm surprised that there isn't more said by the military bloggers about Syria on this board.
Back on the theme of the doomed military system it was reported that the CPS is now taking on prosecutions for the DWP. On top of its responsibility for HM Revenue prosecutions, which it has had since January 2010, CPS keeps expanding its reach. How much longer can the military prosecutors remain an exclusive club? They don't handle cases that are as complicated as the high level crime the CPS does. The clock must be ticking. Tess top of page |
| 11 March: It's great to see the sounding board active again after such a long time. I think Pete makes a really good point. The failures of recent military options and the general structuring of our armed forces is an example of how clueless are our political leadership and the civil service that gives it advice. We could learn a thing or two from the early Roman emperors who had a successful military career behind them before wearing the purple. Scipio top of page |
| 9 March: great strategy by the chinles wonders to announce a withdrawal to the enemy. so what are our guys fighting and dying for. pete top of page |
| 18 January: it dont matter how you dress it up the european human rights court has made fools of us and is hell bent on humiliating our country. pete top of page |
| 17 January: I understand what Aspals is saying but the point is that the court keeps making it more difficult for us to get rid of terrorists. Now we've got assurances that he wont be tortured they say that we still cant chuck him out because he wont get a fair trial in his own country. When will they stop making it up as they go along. Thinners top of page |
| I agree that the court's decision makes the task of expelling dangerous undesirables more difficult, but the latest requirement (the home nation's courts should not use evidence obtained by torture) is not an insuperable one. After all, if an agreement can be reached that the home nation (a) shall not torture the individual and (b) if he is found guilty at his trial shall not execute him, it seems that an agreement on excluding at his trial evidence based on torture is achievable too. Aspals top of page |
| 17 January: european judges overruling british courts now theres a thing. my advice, just ignore them. pete top of page |
| 17 January: That's right, the decisions are taken on what is the best course for the company/employer. It is a business decision. Briony top of page |
| 17 January: So we cannot get rid of Al Qatadar because the european court says so. I hope the government puts in an appeal or just ignores the decisionl Our safety is the most important thing. We should send him back to where he comes from and let them try him. Thinners top of page |
| I think that the press reports on the case are a little misleading. While it is true that al Qatada cannot be extradited it is not because of distrust of the assurances given by Jordan that he wouldn't be tortured or treated poorly, it was because the court was not satisfied that Jordan would not use evidence against him obtained by torture. They in fact said unanimously, that, if he were deported to Jordan: There would be no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights; and no violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security) of the
Convention. The violation that they sustained was his right to a fair trial under article 6. May be the decision isn't so bad after all. Perhaps if the Jordanians give an assurance that they will not use evidence against him which was obtained by torture, that might pave the way to his extradition. The other assurances were accepted by the court. Aspals top of page |
| 17 January: So the merits of the case have no bearing then, Briony? Accusers win the day every time. Mad. Scipio top of page |
| 17 January: Happy new year to everyone. In answer to Pete and Scipio, out of court settlements happen all the time in employment cases. It is unfortunately true that it is quite often much cheaper to settle than to let the case go to a hearing. Settling is advised too when there is a concern that sensitive industrial information might be revealed, so a confidentiality clause is inserted into the settlement part of the draft judgment. Briony top of page |
| 16 January: (reply to Pete). It is nothing new. Why run the risk of upsetting allies when we know that if a case goes to court the judges will order disclosure of just about anything. Secrets are no longer secret, according to the HR lawyers. I think the SIS is quite right to protect our sensitive information and agency contacts by buying off the claimants, even if we think they really are nasty pieces of work. It's a crazy world but that's what the human rights lobbyists have made it. Commit a really serious act against this country, fail to give an explanation of your conduct, and then claim your human rights were abused. I agree with Pete's sentiments. It really is a daft state of affairs to do this when there is no case to answer against state agents. Scipio top of page |
| 13 January: Maybe the reasons they paid the compensation is that the govt or intel people thought they might lose the case. Thinners top of page |
| 13 January: if the police cant prosecute sis of torture of two men who said they did it why did we pay them millions in compensation. pete top of page |
| It is an interesting question as the evidential sufficiency test applied for a prosecution (is there a realistic prospect of conviction and, if so, is it in the public interest to prosecute) is similar to the test applied in a civil court to establish civil liability (the balance of probabilities). I suspect that paying them money was considered to be a better option than running the risk of the courts ordering further disclosures of sensitive information which might have further damaged relations with allied intelligence agencies. Alternatively, it actually might have been a cheaper option than having a court case with its associated costs. Aspals top of page |
| 4 January: The idea of a civilian head running the prosecutors is good news but it still doesn't go far enough to dispel an appearance of the military legal prosecution system as anything other than an old boys club dealing in house. The public just can't have any confidence in a process that is shrouded in secrecy when it deals with really serious criminal offences. I think that whatever anyone else says, its days are numbered and I wonder if it will survive the PIL onslaught of cases. I met someone the other day who was CPS with military experience, I think he was forces legal. He told me that there is a TA for the army lawyers. In other words, there is a pool of prosecutors within CPS that already has military experience. Like anything, once you've done a few cases and become conversant with the system, it becomes straightforward. I suppose that once the CPS takes it over a lot of the military rules will be replaced by the criminal procedure rules, with one or two changes made to accommodate forces life, such as tours overseas or war deployments. Tess top of page |
I linked this to Pete's comment of 23 Dec, as this is what I presume you were referring to. Can I please gently remind contributors to reference the post to which they are replying/commenting? Thank you.  Aspals top of page |