Sailor jailed for refusing a training course

[scaryjim]

A direct quote (or as direct as it can be given it's published by the Fail!) from the defendant:

The Geneva Convention says medics are non-combative and we are only allowed to protect our patients if we have to.

And if you have to defend your patients, you need to be fully conversant with the tools to carry out that task. If he's working in a field hospital that gets attacked and doesn't know how to use his rifle properly he's going to be pretty useless for anything but running and being shot in the back. I could see his point if he was sent on active service whilst awaiting his appeal, but even operating in a non-combat capacity he would still be military personnel and should be trained appropriately.

The sentence may be harsh, but refusing an order from a superior officer is never going to go down well, and whatever impact participating in rifle training may have had on his conscientious objection appeal, it wouldn't have been half as bad as this...

[BobF64]

The correct decision, in my view.

He's a military medic, and part of their duties as I understand it, is to use force to defend themselves and/or their patients. If he is unable to do that, he puts the lives of others at risk.

Exactly, unless theres some other part to the story that isnt being told, he was sent for routine rifle training so that he would know how to use one in the event he needed to defend himself or patients.

Its one thing to object to being sent out, and another to object to training, he picked the wrong thing to object to.

[IronWarrior]

You join the Armed Forces to fight, everyone should understand this and accept this, you don't choose your orders, you do what you told to do, I hope he enjoys his 7 long months in the glass house, should had been longer personally since he is now risking the life of an other person who had to take his place. Personally I see him joining up because he likes to play soldiers and have something to put on his CV but now it's his turn to do his duty, he doesn't want to play anymore.

Why did he join in the first place if he wasn't prepared to train and fire weapons?

[Jaffar]

The sentence seems a little heavy handed to me. Couldn't they have just given the guy a dishonourable discharge?

[peterb]

The sentence seems a little heavy handed to me. Couldn't they have just given the guy a dishonourable discharge?

They did - that was part of the sentence.

The Naval Discipline Act (1957) required* that everyone under the jurisdiction of the act (which he would have done) is required to obey the lawful order of his or her superior officer.

Given that the order was lawful, his refusal to obey constituted an offence under the act.

The question of his conscientious objection was a defence, which the court rejected for the reasons stated. Given that he was found guilty, the sentence seems entirely consistent with the charge.

Apart from anything else, it would be untenable for someone to suddenly turn round and claim "conscientious objection" as soon as they were sent somewhere they didn't want to go.

* The NDA has since been replaced by the Armed Forces Act (2006) buit didn't come into full effect until 31 October 2009. It isn't clear which Act he was charged under, but I would expect the provisions to be the same in both Acts of Parliament.

There is more information at http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Ab...lOfServiceLaw/

Disobedience to lawful commands
(1) A person subject to service law commits an offence if–
(a) he disobeys a lawful command; and
(b) he intends to disobey, or is reckless as to whether he disobeys, the
command.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable to any punishment
mentioned in the Table in section 164, but any sentence of imprisonment imposed in
respect of the offence must not exceed ten years.

[Jaffar]

So PeterB, are you saying they had no option but to jail him? Could they not have given him a dishonorable discharge with a suspended sentence?

[peterb]

No, I'm not say that - thee court had a range of options, including sending him to jail for ten years. Had he been serving in a combat zone, the sentence would have reflected that. In that context, seven months is quite lenient.

But discipline is fundamental to the effectiveness of the armed forces, and refusal to obey a lawful order is a breakdown of that discipline. It is a serious offence, under whatever circumstances it happens.

[Jaffar]

But discipline is fundamental to the effectiveness of the armed forces, and refusal to obey a lawful order is a breakdown of that discipline. It is a serious offence, under whatever circumstances it happens.

Fair point. I can see that you need to set an example so that you don't have everyone else thinking they can disobey orders. I also agree that an acting serviceman suddenly claiming to be a conscientious objector is a bit far-fetched.

But, he refused to be trained to take up arms - it wasn't like he refused an active order and put other people's lives at risk, etc. Why break a butterfly upon a wheel?

[peterb]

Because by refusing to be trained, he would have made himself ineligible to be deployed to anywhere where there was likely to be conflict. And given that he was a medical assistant, and the most useful deployment is where there are likely to be injured personnel. it makes him superfluous to requirements. And if he didn't go, someone else would have to go in his place, which gets away from equality of treatment of him as an individual, and would make his position with his mates untenable. Would you trust someone who, when the going got tough, whimped out? I certainly wouldn't.

And the offence was disobeying a lawful order - the circumstances are irrelevant to the commissioning of the offence, although they might be taken into account during sentencing as mitigation.

My guess is that when he initially refused, the order was repeated, and then he was taken away and interviewed. The case could have been tried summarily, but my guess is that he elected for trial by Court Martial because of the unusual nature of his defence. But hard to tell the exact circumstances from a report by the Daily Mail.

[Jaffar]

it makes him superfluous to requirements...and would make his position with his mates untenable.

I agree with this. I'm not suggesting he should have been allowed to keep his job. Clearly he isn't able to fulfil his duties so needs to go. I just think locking him up is a bit strong. Can't people buy themselves out of military contracts these days? I know they sign up for a particular length of service, but it seems harsh if people have no way out if they do change their mind.

[peterb]

They can give notice, no buying out required. He would have been on an open (22yr) engagement but able to give notice without penalty. But just because they give notice doesn't stop them from being deployed, and the notice period can be quite liong. There are also minimum return of service periods for certain categories of employment, or after (for exqample) long training courses.

[Jaffar]

Fair enough. I have to say I am a bit suspicious about the timing of his crisis of conscience. If he had giving notice at the start of the war presumably he would have avoided active service?

[peterb]

Not necessarily - the maximum time he can be kept would be 18 months (usually less which would have been long enough to deploy him before he was discharged. Difficult to know without being there, but I think he was probably "swinging the lead" to get out of a deployment - and the Court thought so too.

[Jaffar]

Hmm, I can see why they gave him a custodial in that case - mainly to send a message to other servicemen.

Presumably when he joined aged 18 he thought the worst he could expect would be a posting in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, you do have to accept the possibility of war if you join the military, even if it seems unlikely at the time of signing up.

[Gerrard]

The funny thing is that I know a few people who are trying to volunteer to go to Afghan but are being refused. In fact there's a waiting list! But that's due to being certain ranks and trades (and being overmanned due to cutbacks ironically).

I think if he had objected before getting selected to be deployed, then there wouldn't have been much of a problem. However, you can give your notice in pretty much whenever, especially as we are trying to get rid of people now. Usually it's about 6 months (it is for me anyway), but I've also heard various rumors that it can be as little as a month due to some European ruling stating that you only need to give as much notice as you get paid (ie, monthly). No idea on the rules when you get selected to go on deployment, but as you can quite a long notice (months), you could probably still skip out on it.

[Betty_Swallocks]

They can give notice, no buying out required. He would have been on an open (22yr) engagement but able to give notice without penalty.

Things must have changed since I was in the RAF. If I'd wanted to get out early it would have cost me quite a lot of money. It always used to be the case that you had to pay to get out of the forces before the end of your time. (Not contradicting you. It was rather a long time ago I finished my service career and a lot may have changed in that time.)