Armed Forces Act 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On 8 November 2006 a new Armed Forces Act received Royal Assent in the United Kingdom, and by the end of 2008 will replace the separate Service Discipline Acts as the system of law under which the Armed Forces operate. The Armed Forces Act harmonises Service law and as a result produces a tri-Service system that ensures consistency and parity when dealing with service personnel. One motivating factor behind the changes in the legislation combining discipline acts across the armed forces is the the trend towards tri-service operations and defence organisations.

Key areas of change include:

Summary Discipline Summary hearing and the role of the Commanding Officer will be retained at the heart of Service discipline and will be the mechanism by which most offences are dealt. Summary offences and powers will be harmonised across the Services. There will be a reduction in the number of offences and sentencing powers available to Commanding Officers of the Royal Navy and an increase in those available to British Army and Royal Air Force Commanding Officers as powers of punishment are harmonised.
Service Prosecuting Authority A single Service Prosecuting Authority, staffed by lawyers from all three Services, will be created. The role of the SPA will be unchanged in that it will determine whether to prosecute an accused under Service law and will conduct the prosecution case at most Courts Martial.
The Court Martial Courts Martial will remain the means of dealing with the most serious offences. A standing Court Martial will be introduced comprising a Judge Advocate and a minimum of 3 or 5 Service members depending on the seriousness of the offence. During 2007, in order to harmonise with the other Services, the Royal Navy will introduce the unqualified right for all personnel to elect for trial by Court Martial regardless of the seriousness of the offence.
Service Offences Service offences are those offences in the act that are unique to Service law – serving to enforce the discipline essential to maintaining operational effectiveness of the Armed Forces.

The Act also granted a symbolic pardon to soldiers controversially executed for cowardice and other offences during the First World War.

[edit] Offences in the Act

The Act provides for the prosecution of various offences, under ten main headings. These are

Assisting an enemy, misconduct on operations, etc.

Mutiny In the Act mutiny is defined as being if a person subject to service law agrees with at least one other person subject to service law to overthrow or resist authority; or he agrees with at least one other person subject to service law to disobey authority, and the agreed disobedience would be such as to subvert discipline. Failure to suppress mutiny is also an offence. The maximum punishment provided by the Act is life imprisonment.

Desertion and absence without leave

Insubordination etc Includes misconduct towards a superior officer and disobedience to lawful commands.

Neglect of duty and misconduct Includes failure to attend for or perform duty, malingering, disclosure of information useful to an enemy, ill-treatment of subordinates, conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline, unfitness or misconduct through alcohol or drugs, among others. Malingering is defined to include any self inflicted injuries that has the effect of rendering the person unable to attend their duties.

Property offences

Offences against service justice

Ships and aircraft

Attempts, incitement, and aiding and abetting

Criminal conduct

[edit] Pardon

The mass pardon of 306 British and Irish soldiers executed during the Great War was enacted in section 359 of the Act, which came into effect on Royal Assent. This number included three from New Zealand, twenty three from Canada, two from the West Indies, two from Ghana and one each from Sierra Leone, Egypt and Nigeria [1]. However section 359(4) states that the pardon "does not affect any conviction or sentence." Since the nature of a pardon is normally to quash a conviction or to commute a sentence, Gerald Howarth MP asked during parliamentary debate: "we are entitled to ask what it does do." ^[1] It would appear to be a symbolic pardon only, and some members of Parliament had called for the convictions to be quashed, although the pardon has still been welcomed by relatives of executed soldiers.^[2]